Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HIGHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL (WESTER BRIDGE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Mr. Secretary Lang: presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Highland Regional Council (Wester Bridge); and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 237.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Baghdad (US Attack)

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the United Kingdom's Arab allies about the United States' attack upon Baghdad; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The policies of the Baghdad regime of course cause us great concern and therefore we have frequent and close consultations with our Arab friends and partners.

Mr. Galloway: I thank the Minister for that answer, although it did not answer my question. In their discussions, did his allies tell him that when the 1,000 lb of explosives landed on the house of the celebrated Iraqi artist Leila al-Attar, killing her, her husband, and a member of her staff, and cruelly maiming her children, they had any idea what would arise from the ashes of that disaster? What rises from the ashes of Al Mansour is the barbarism of extremism and fundamentalism, which is breathing down the necks of the allies with whom he has had regular discussions. When the Minister reads of the latest murderous assault that will come any day now, will he bear in mind the fact that as long as our Government and the western powers are ready to pulverise Iraq, but appease Israel, and are ready to starve and blockade innocent Iraqis, but allow Serbia to get off with genocide in Yugoslavia, our Government's policies will be contributing to the disaster that is on its way?

Mr. Hogg: The death of anyone not connected with the aggressive policies of Iraq is to be deeply regretted. However, it was quite plain that the Government of Iraq

were behind the attempt to assassinate former President Bush. That was a clear attack on the security of the United States. We believe that, in invoking article 51 of the charter, the United States was entitled to take the action it did, which received broad support.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: In considering a response to Iraq's failure to comply with the appropriate Security Council resolution, will the Government be in touch with the political opponents of Saddam Hussein outside Iraq and the Arab countries threatened by Iraq, and will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that any action taken is proportionate, involves the minimum loss of life and advances the long-term strategic aims of the United Nations?

Mr. Hogg: We will indeed ensure that any action that may have to be taken—I hasten to say that I hope that no action will have to be taken—is proportionate, causes the minimum casualties and is firmly based on international law. We are in continuing discussions with our Arab friends, partners and others about that issue and related matters.

Mr. Dalyell: For the reasons that I gave the Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Michael Burton, in the interview that was arranged for me by the Foreign Secretary, do Ministers accept that, whether they like it or not, sanctions and bombing strengthen the regime of Saddam Hussein in a way that nothing else could?

Mr. Hogg: I do not accept that point, but I accept that it is extraordinarily difficult by a policy either of sanctions or of bombing to displace Saddam Hussein. It is essential for all of us to ensure full compliance by Iraq with the mandatory elements of the Security Council resolutions, especially those that relate to the eradication of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. We must hold to the sanctions regime if we are to achieve that.

Lady Olga Maitland: What representations has my right hon. and learned Friend had from our Arab allies regarding the missing 627 Kuwaiti prisoners of war—male and female civilians—who were taken from their homes three years ago? To this date, Iraq has failed to comply with United Nations resolutions seeking their release. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make the greatest endeavours to achieve justice in that important humanitarian matter?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. The Government of Kuwait raise the question with us on every possible occasion and we raise it with the Iraqis in New York and at the sanctions review meetings. It is one of the very important respects in which Iraq is in breach of the mandatory parts of the Security Council resolutions and it makes the relaxation of the sanctions regime impossible at the moment.

Mrs. Mahon: How does the Minister expect to secure the release of the three Britons being held in Iraq when his Government condone the bombing? The family of Michael Wainwright think that every time the British Government support such actions, they put the lives of those men in danger.

Mr. Hogg: It is important to separate the two issues. We are, of course, very concerned about the position of Mr. Ride, Mr. Wainwright and Mr. Dunn and we take


every opportunity to impress on the Iraqis the fact that we regard the sentences imposed on them as outrageous. As the hon. Lady knows, our representatives saw the three men a few days ago. The Russians have been extremely helpful in facilitating visits to the three men. We will do all that we can to secure their release, but we will not pay any kind of blackmail and we insist on our right to support, for example, the Americans when they exercise their right of self-defence under the charter of the United Nations.

Mr. Brazier: My right hon. and learned Friend has taken a tough and robust stand in forcing the Iraqi regime to conform to the United Nations requirements on weapons of mass destruction. Does he agree that this is a matter in which the vital interests of this country and of every other country in the west and in the civilised world are fundamentally involved? If the west backs off and the United Nations requirements on weapons of mass destruction are not enforced, the consequences are too horrible to consider.

Mr. Hogg: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. I had the pleasure of seeing Ambassador Ekeus a few days ago and he made two important points. First, he believes that there has been a substantial eradication of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq, but that it has not been completed. Secondly, he believes that provided that we hold to a tough verification and monitoring regime in future, we can prevent the Government of Iraq from reassembling weapons of mass destruction. He goes on to say—and I agree—that if we fail to hold to a tough policy of monitoring and verification, the chances are that the Iraqi Government will do just that.

Dr. John Cunningham: Although we of course support the determination to enforce the resolutions of the UN Security Council in respect of Iraq, what evidence is there that the frequent launching of missiles against Iraq is hastening that process? Is not it really the case that as well as causing the inevitable slaughter of innocent civilians, it causes Iraq to become more intransigent, especially when missiles are launched under questionable legal authority? Is not there also another grave consequence, which is that our friends and allies in other Arab countries in the middle east are themselves politically destabilised? Is not it far better to pursue the action being taken now in the name of the United Nations, which is further discussions and an insistence on Iraq's meeting the requirements of the resolutions, than to contemplate yet another missile attack, with yet more civilian casualties and yet more support for the odious regime of Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points and I shall be unable to reply to them all. First, I say at once that I deplore as much as he does the civilian casualties. That is, indeed, a tragedy and one cannot pretend otherwise. Secondly, I do not believe that our friends and allies in the middle east are being destabilised.

Dr. John Cunningham: Yes, they are.

Mr. Hogg: I do not believe—it is a matter of judgment—that they are being destabilised in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has claimed. Thirdly, I do not feel uneasy about the legal basis for the action in the way that the right hon. Gentleman apparently does.
Lastly, of course we hope that we can avoid future military action. I hope that the Iraqis will comply with the mandatory elements of resolution 687, but the right hon. Gentleman must ask himself what we should do if they do not. That takes me back to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).

G7 Summit (Tokyo)

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the G7 summit in Tokyo.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement in the House on Monday. The progress made on trade was especially welcome and the market access package endorsed by the summit provides the much-needed impetus for resuming the multilateral negotiations in Geneva.

Mr. Moss: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was the British Government's agenda for international economic recovery that found widespread acceptance in Tokyo, as it did in Copenhagen some weeks ago? As Britain is a leading advocate of free trade, does not the enhanced prospect of a successful conclusion to the GATT talks later this year mean good news for the British economy and for British jobs?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. We have pressed that view for a long time. It has proved to be a long road. We do not believe in systems for regional trade—Fortress Europe, Fortress Asia or Fortress North America—which are not good for a world trading country such as ours, so we were encouraged by the success on trade access. We can approach the main GATT negotiations in Geneva with a good deal more optimism than seemed likely a few weeks ago.

Mr. Winnick: What is the use of fine words about Bosnia when, on Monday, 12 people were killed and 15 were seriously injured queuing for water as a result of the action by Serbian war criminals? It should be clear to the Government, and to other western Governments, following the summit, that the Serbians will continue their aggression, their murder and their crimes and atrocities against humanity, as long as they believe that they can get away with it? What on earth is the west going to do about it?

Mr. Hurd: I will talk about that when I answer a later question, but the two immediate needs are to keep people alive by continuing humanitarian supplies—Mrs. Ogata urged that in London on Monday—and to bring the fighting to an end, which will happen only through a negotiated settlement, unless the hon. Member and others in the west are prepared to do something that no one has been prepared to do, which is to send an international expeditionary force to impose a particular solution. No one has suggested that, save one or two Opposition Members. No Government have suggested that. The rhetoric that has done so much harm in the matter has come from exaggerated expectations, leading to exaggerated criticisms.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important outcome of the G7 meeting was that it was


plain that the British Government were not going to engage in any military intervention in Bosnia? Was not that a significant demonstration of leadership and choice to the British nation and a rejection of the dangerous and deceitful dream of world government, which the parties of the left in the House enjoyed for at least 100 years? Did not the Government at last demonstrate a true Tory view—that British soldiers should risk their lives only in upholding the British national interest?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend knows that 2,500 British troops are in Bosnia. They are helping to keep people alive. They have so far escorted 950 convoys and 45,700 tonnes of food, mainly to Muslims and Croats. Many Bosnians, of all backgrounds, would have been dead had it not been for the British effort, so I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think that was, and remains, a thoroughly worthwhile effort. However, I do not believe, and have never used rhetoric that would lead anyone to believe, that it was part of Britain's interests to pretend that we could sort out every man-made disaster in the world, of which there are many at the moment. The United Nations is struggling with great difficulty in places such as Somalia, Iraq—which we have just dealt with—Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique and Bosnia to do what it can. It is in our interest to do our bit, but we should not over-pretend, or let rhetoric get in the way of reality.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did the G7 consider the reports from Iran that it might want to send as many as 17,000 troops to Bosnia? If that were to happen, what would be the response of the western democracies?

Mr. Hurd: It is for the Secretary-General to assess replies to his request for more troops for Bosnia. I am glad that the French are sending more and I hope that other European countries that have been thinking of it will do so. I believe that there is a strong case for having Muslim contingents there. I do not personally think that Iran would be a suitable candidate for that.

Hong Kong

Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Governor of Hong Kong to discuss the future of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: On Friday 9 July. I reported to him on my visit to Peking on 8 and 9 July. In Peking I had useful wide-ranging talks with Chinese leaders. On the electoral issue, I was able to focus their attention on the essential points and to make plain the need for more rapid progress. I emphasised the need for fair and open elections acceptable to the people of Hong Kong and for the negotiations to concentrate on three things: the functional constituencies, the election committee and the through train—that is to say, the need for clear, objective criteria for candidates standing in the 1995 elections to remain members of the legislature for a full four-year term. Chinese leaders also agreed to speed up work on the airport and in the joint liaison group.

Mr. Sims: I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed reply. He mentioned the joint liaison group which, clearly, has a key role to play between now and 1997, but it has been making particularly slow progress. What success does he think that he had in discussing with officials in Beijing

and with the Governor ways in which the work of that group could be expedited? Will he take this opportunity of explaining to the House the implication of the establishment with the Chinese of the preliminary working committee?

Mr. Hurd: On the first point, yes, we made some progress inasmuch as the dates for future meetings have been fixed for September and later this year in Peking and London. I emphasized—this was not contradicted—the need to get on with much of the agenda, for example the air services agreement, defence lands and the technical changing of legislation. I hope that there is progress there, although the next few months will show whether that hope is real.
I raised the matter of the preparatory working group with the Chinese Foreign Minister who is to be chairman of the group and received an assurance that it was not aimed at interfering in or complicating the work of the joint liaison group or, indeed, the administration of Hong Kong by Britain up to June 1997.

Mr. Rogers: When I met Governor Patten on his visit here on 1 July I was pleased to hear that the process of getting democratic structures into place by 1997 was advancing and that the through train has been pursued assiduously. When will the Secretary of State make a decision on the future of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong? There are 7,000 such people, mainly of Indian origin, who were removed to Hong Kong as many as 100 years ago and who are likely to become stateless under the citizenship propositions. Surely they deserve much better treatment from this Government than what has been proposed.

Mr. Hurd: This is a long-standing argument and I know the strength of the case. It was dealt with a few days ago on 9 July by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. He repeated the assurance that the group already has: that if, against all expectations, they come under pressure to leave Hong Kong and have nowhere else to go, the Government of the day would consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to this country.

European Community (Enlargement)

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards enlarging the EC.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Accession negotiations are in train with Austria, Finland Sweden and Norway. The June European Council set a target date of 1 January 1995 for their accession. It also agreed that the six associate countries of eastern Europe should become members as soon as they could assume the responsibilities of membership. On 30 June, the Commission's opinions on the applications for membership of Malta and Cyprus were issued. We welcome those developments.

Mr. Garnier: While I welcome the proposals for the accession of, in particular, the European Free Trade Association countries, because they will be net contributors, will my hon. Friend keep a firm hold on the present: first, by ensuring that the deliberations of EC Ministers are dealt with more effectively by their meetings beginning on


time; secondly, by ensuring that there is a complete absence of pettifogging and nitpicking regulations emanating from Europe; thirdly, by ensuring that article 3(b) is brought into effect as soon as possible; and, fourthly, will he do his best to ensure that the social chapter is kept well offshore?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. We, too, want article 3(b) of the treaty brought into effect as soon as possible, but that requires ratification first. I know that my hon. Friend will play his part in that. I believe that the accession of the additional EFTA states will help us, as they, too, believe in a decentralised, open-trading Community with strong budget discipline. That will help us to resist those who want an enclosed, protectionist, centralised, socialist Europe.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Despite the schedule of events that the Minister sketched in his opening reply and the fact that, for example, Finland acknowledges the diplomatic role that Britain is playing within the Community to assist it in its progress towards membership, will the Minister none the less acknowledge that there are fears among various parties in various countries within the existing Community that the British Government—not least because of reports about the Foreign Office preparation for the next set of intergovernmental conferences, if we can look that far forward—see the enlargement process as a means of putting the brakes, along the lines that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) was hinting at, on the process of further European integration? Will he allay fears on that matter?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Government welcome the accession negotiations, which are well under way and going well. We were in the lead in inviting other member states to set a target date for the accession of the additional states. We want to strengthen Europe by enlarging it.

Mr. Channon: Will my hon. Friend say a word more about the accession of the associate states that were part of the old Soviet Union? What does he think is now the likely timetable for them?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We believe that Europe should be open to any application from a European state that is democratic and willing to take on the responsibilities of membership. That includes the states of eastern and central Europe. I have to be candid in saying that their membership must be some years away, but the Copenhagen summit was clear in welcoming their eventual accession.

Mr. Hoon: Assuming that enlargement is completed successfully, what consequential changes in the decision-making processes of the European Community does the Minister expect will be necessary? In particular, does he expect that more majority voting in the Council of Ministers will be required?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, that does not necessarily follow, although it is true that the accession of four additional states will cause us to look again at some of the institutional mechanisms. The number of votes that each of the accession states has remains to be negotiated.

Democratic Elections

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to how many countries he has made representations in the last six months urging them to hold democratic elections.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We have made such representations to 12 countries in the past six months.

Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that, in the middle east, the only true democracy is Israel? In view of that, and if he believes in democracy, will he tell me why the Government discriminate against Israel, in both trade and aid? We know that the shambles opposite do not know anything about democracy, dominated as they are by the unions—no say no pay, and all that nonsense—but we do. In view of that, does not he think that the Government should give their undivided support to the Government of Israel?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree with my hon. Friend that Israel is a democracy, although I hope that it will resolve the problems of the occupied territories in the context of the current peace process. It is not true that we discriminate against Israel. Only last week at the Tokyo summit there was a call for removal of the Arab boycott.

Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister agree that the violation by the Nigerian military authorities of the democratic process in Nigeria last month was tragic not only for the people of Nigeria, but in the precedent that it set—an all-too-frequent precedent—for those around the world who accept the democratic process only when it gives them the results that they want? Will the Minister confirm that that violation of the democratic process in Nigeria has resulted in bloodshed and a further infringement of civil and human rights? Will he further confirm to the House and to the Nigerian authorities that there can be no normalisation of relations with Nigeria—rather, relations will inevitably deteriorate—until the regime there understands that the only legitimate source of political authority is not the army but the will of the people?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have taken a strong line and we have deplored the decision of the Nigerian Government not to respect the elections and to seek another way forward. We have made it absolutely clear that we will not normalise relations until a proper democratic civilian regime is in place in Nigeria.

Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. Friend be making representations to the Chinese Government about the present situation in Tibet, where no democratic elections have been held since the invasion in 1948 and where recently large-scale riots in the streets have been savagely put down by the Chinese occupation forces?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised that matter with the Chinese Government in Peking last week and made our position clear.

Ms Eagle: Is the Minister aware of the increasingly dangerous situation in Cambodia following its elections, particularly the gains of influence and territory being made by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? Is it not disgraceful that the western powers have included that appalling


organisation in the so-called peace effort and allowed it to make gains which bring the probability of another year zero even closer?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are actively encouraging the Cambodian authorities to complete the new constitution and form a Government who respect the wishes of the Cambodian people as expressed in that election.

Mr. Colvin: I am sure that one of the countries to which Her Majesty's Government will have made representations is the Republic of South Africa. Have the Government expressed any preference for the sort of democratic structure that they would like to see in place in that country when the reforms—which are long overdue, and welcome—are in place? Will he acknowledge that a federal or perhaps a confederal system in South Africa is more likely not only to protect the democratic rights of minority groups but to assist that country to the economic recovery without which the people's economic aspirations are not likely to be met after the elections are held?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We welcome the South African Government's decision to hold elections on 27 April next year, but the constitutional arrangements for those elections are a matter for the South African people in their current discussions. We continue to give strong support for negotiations to end the current violence.

Bosnia

Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to ensure that Serb and Croat aggression in Bosnia is not rewarded by territorial acquisition.

Mr. Hurd: A solution dictated by the Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Bosnian Muslims would not be accepted by the international community. Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg continue the search for an equitable negotiated settlement based on the concept of one Bosnia. Mr. Stoltenberg briefed the United Nations Security Council yesterday. This would have to involve Serb and Croat withdrawal from the present positions taken by force. Sanctions will continue to be enforced against Serbia and Montenegro until the conditions set by the Security Council are met. We believe that the time has come for the European Community, perhaps on Monday, to consider economic measures against Croatia so long as Croatia, too, is engaged in activities contrary to internationally established principles.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that that answer essentially reiterates the policy that he and the Government have pursued during the past year and more? That policy has failed to stop the aggression by the Serbs and Croats and the sickening slaughter of innocent men, women and children in Sarajevo and countless other Bosnian towns.
When will the Foreign Secretary recognise that the lesson of history is that aggressors are not stopped by fine words and declarations, but only by the prospect of superior military force? Does he also recognise that until the United Nations acts firmly and concertedly to stop the aggression there will not be an end to the sickening killing?

Mr. Hurd: The difficulties of following that advice may be seen in Somalia today, and the situation in Somalia is

easy compared with the problems of Bosnia. That is why I repeat that no Government with whom we have been in contact—in fact, no Government at all—have proposed, as the hon. Gentleman does, that an international expeditionary force be sent to impose a solution to the civil war in Bosnia and then stay there to enforce that solution for one, two, five or 10 years. Many half-measures have been suggested, and we have analysed them.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have not managed to stop the fighting with the present policies. What we can do is provide a framework of ideas for a negotiated settlement, put economic and financial pressures on those stimulating the fighting—I mentioned that in relation to Croatia—and help to keep people alive.

Mr. Fry: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not enough to say that the UN and this country will not condone the Croat and Serb invasions of parts of Bosnia? That cannot be done without making it clear that the only way to enforce any settlement is to ensure that there can be a degree of resettlement of the people who have been subject to ethnic cleansing. That will not be decided by a few words. There will be a need for an international force to ensure that resettlement can take place. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to take that up with the UN as soon—I hope that it will be soon—as some kind of settlement is agreed among the three parties?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. Once there is a negotiated settlement, which cannot be dictated by Serbs and Croats, the question of saving people and establishing them in new homes or their old homes arises immediately. There will have to be a big international effort. The Heads of Government said at their meeting in Tokyo that that cannot be undertaken at the dictate of Serbs and Croats. Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg are not seeking to press the Bosnia Muslims into accepting a particular settlement. They are saying that it is worth while from everybody's point of view that the discussions in Geneva should continue to see whether such a settlement can emerge based on one Bosnia, either a confederation or a federation.

Dr. John Cunningham: Few people, apart from the right hon. Gentleman, are in any doubt that the outcome in Bosnia is being dictated by Serbian and Croatian aggression. All the evidence points to that inescapable conclusion, and the deplorable statement from Washington in May this year was almost an invitation to that end.
Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped issuing threadbare threats of tougher measures which never emerge? The use of air power is never ruled out, but it is never ruled in. That is in stark contrast with Iraq, where the war is over but missiles have been used in furtherance of United Nations resolutions. The war is continuing in Bosnia, but no action, even limited action, is taken.
There are options between the present position and the all-out expeditionary force to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but no action is being taken. The outcome is a deplorable defeat for the EC and for the United Nations.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is a firm disciple of the "something must be done" school. I listened with growing bafflement to the rigmarole of the Leader of the


Opposition elaborating on this theme in answer to the Prime Minister on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman is rightly against lifting the arms embargo. He talks about air power, but I do not know what he means; it has never been spelt out. What does he think will be achieved? The position is clear: NATO and the Security Council have agreed that if UNPROFOR troops, and our troops, are attacked from the air, NATO can defend them. That is perfectly clear and has been made perfectly clear to everyone. The right hon. Gentleman must get out of the habit of supposing in a vague and unformulated way that the half-measures that he is advocating will produce results which could be produced only by something so drastic that not even he would propose it.

Departmental Personnel

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of personnel in post on Foreign and Commonwealth Office duties (a) abroad and (b) in the United Kingdom; at what cost; what were the corresponding figures five, 10 and 15 years ago in numbers and cost in real terms; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): The total diplomatic wing United Kingdom-based establishment of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is currently 6,648, of which 4,048 are serving at home and 2,600 overseas. The corresponding figures in earlier years were 6,578 in 1988–89, of which 3,775 were serving at home and 2,793 overseas, 6,763 in 1983 and 7,275 in 1978. A breakdown of personnel between home and overseas in 1978 and 1983 is not available.
The estimated pay bill for 1993–94 is £265 million. The equivalent figure on the same price base for 1988–89 was £257 million and for 1983–84 £251 million. A comparable figure for 1978–79 is not available.
These figures should be seen against the background of increasing demands on the diplomatic wing. We continue to exercise rigorous control over United Kingdom-based staff numbers at home and overseas.

Mr. Greenway: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply—[Interruption.] For all the hilarity in the House, I am sure that we are grateful to all members of staff in embassies and consulates around the world for the excellent work that they do for our country. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the number of staff in post in the foreign service is diminishing rather than increasing at a time when more are needed because the world situation is so much more complex with the break-up of countries into much smaller units? Will he convey the support of the House to the Treasury and say that we want more people in post and properly supported because that is the only way in which this country's influence can be sustained and improved and in which trade can be improved?

Mr. Goodlad: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The Government will ensure that the level of staffing in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is equal to the tasks laid on us.

Ms Coffey: Has the Minister received any more information from Foreign Office staff in Turkey about the possible release date for my constituent David

Rowbottom and his partner who are being held by the PKK? Can he give the families any assurances because, as he will appreciate, they are extremely worried?

Mr. Goodlad: I will write to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Wilkinson: What evidence is there that, as we supposedly proceed towards ever-closer union in Europe, there will be an ever-diminishing number of Foreign and Commonwealth diplomats stationed in European Community countries? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no diminution of posts, but rather the opposite, in the real growth areas in the world where significant economic advances are being made and where opportunities really exist for British business, such as the Pacific basin and south America?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We shall have people where they are needed.

Mr. George Robertson: Is there any chance that Foreign Office Ministers might drop the supercilious veneer that they deploy in circumstances in which the most trivial and most serious issues are still at stake?
Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean with the House and with the country about what the consequences will be if the Treasury gets its way with regard to the cuts in our diplomatic representation overseas and, especially, the cuts in the British Council and in the BBC World Service? Why will Ministers not speak out about the permanent—perhaps irreparable—damage that will be done to institutions such as the BBC World Service, which is respected across the planet, which almost every day speaks with authority and balance to some 146 million people, and which may well face budget cuts of about £13 million next year? Surely it is the duty of the Foreign Office to come out from behind the diplomatic language and fight for its corner and for the country.

Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman is extremely eloquent in dreaming up ghosts at which to start. I can assure him that we will ensure that the resources provided are equal to the tasks laid upon us.

Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues exercise a little less reticence in attacking ill-informed press criticism of Foreign Office expenditure overseas? Will he confirm that the appointment of the Governor of Bermuda, for example, costs the British taxpayer nothing and that the Government of Bermuda meets the bill in full? Why was it left to the Governor of Bermuda, and not Foreign Office Ministers, to draw attention to the crass criticism in The Mail on Sunday and The Times, among other newspapers?

Mr. Goodlad: If I were to occupy myself dealing with crass criticism by newspapers I should not have time for anything else. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Governor of Bermuda costs the British taxpayer nothing, as he is paid for by Bermuda. The Premier of Bermuda is in this country today and is very welcome here.

Sierra Leone

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present state of United Kingdom relations with Sierra Leone.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are hopeful that our relations will improve.

Mr. Jones: I hope that our relations will improve sufficiently to enable the United Kingdom Government to ask the Sierra Leone Government to honour pension commitments that are still outstanding after, in some cases, 40 years. I refer to United Kingdom citizens who are ex-employees of the Colonial Office, having worked in educational establishments in Sierra Leone. If there is no improvement, will the United Kingdom Government pay the pensions of those people at long last?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly look into the question of our representations to the Sierra Leone Government about the pensions to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He will know that we have many issues outstanding with the Sierra Leone Government. We were very distressed by their conduct last year, and we are seeking, by persuasion, to bring about an improvement in the political situation there, in so far as we can influence it.

Bosnia

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Bosnia with his European counterparts.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend did so at the Copenhagen meeting of the European Council on 21 and 22 June and, again, in the margins of the Tokyo summit held between 7 and 9 July.

Mr. Alton: In the absence of European troops in Bosnia and of the political will to commit them, can the Minister say what we shall do when the members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference appeal to the United Nations to commit up to 18,000 troops there? Given our own indifference to the plight of people who have been masscared in Bosnia, to the mutilation of that country, and to its right to self-determination and sovereignty, and even though we have failed to commit troops for the purpose of saving people there, we should say that we will not oppose the placing of Islamic troops to defend the interests of Muslims, who continue to be massacred.

Mr. Hogg: I have heard some pretty silly questions in this place, but that is one of the silliest. All hon. Members, with the possible exception of the hon. Gentleman, know that we now have 2,400 troops in Bosnia. In addition, there are very substantial French and other European formations. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in consultation with our European partners, there is scope to seek to deter aggression in Bosnia if we can take forward the process of bringing to justice those who are guilty of crimes against humanity? In that regard, does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that it will be possible to name names so that we can deter those who have gone in for ethnic cleansing and other horrors?

Mr. Hogg: The Security Council has made it plain that there should be an ad hoc Yugoslav war crimes tribunal. I agree with that. What is even more important, however, is that we get the parties to the fighting to start negotiating.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister really believe that Serbian expansionism will stop when Bosnia vanishes from the map? It is well known that the Serbians will extend their aggression to other areas in the Balkans once they have finished with Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The Secretary of State has outlined the difficulties and dangers involved in supporting the use of United Nations troops in Bosnia. Does the Minister accept, however, that the same doubts and difficulties existed at the time of the Kuwait-Iraq war? The Secretary of State supported intervention then. What is the difference between Iraq and Bosnia? Is it Arab oil?

Mr. Hogg: Two questions are rolled up in that question. As to Bosnia, it is our determination that there shall continue to be a state of Bosnia. We are seeking to carry forward negotiations whereby the three warring factions can live in peace within the existing frontiers of Bosnia. Whether that is a confederal or federal solution is a matter for the parties involved. That we hope and intend to see a state of Bosnia in future is clear and beyond doubt.
The hon. Gentleman's second question was broadly whether the situation in former Yugoslavia is the same as that in the Gulf. The answer is no. There are remarkable differences. To start with, what we are seeing in Bosnia and indeed throughout much of former Yugoslavia is, in essence, a civil war. What we saw in the Gulf was a clear attack on one sovereign state by another. Moreover, in the Gulf war it was easy to define one's political objective, which was the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. In Bosnia, what one is seeking to achieve is political negotiation and then a settlement through discussion.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not a cruel and cynical betrayal of the Bosnian Muslims that the United Nations should send in a United Nations protection force with no mandate to protect and should declare safe havens that it has no intention to make safe? For how much longer will the United Nations and Her Majesty's Government maintain a position whereby we deny the victims of aggression any outside assistance and refuse to let them have access to the means of self-defence when we know that the other side—the Serbs—started the conflict with more than 10 times as much ammunition and hardware?

Mr. Hogg: We need to be clear about this. The United Nations is neither more nor less than its member states. Therefore, the essential question is whether the member states—in particular, the United Kingdom—are prepared to put combat troops into Bosnia to wage war. If the answer is no—and that, indeed, is the answer—people must not encourage the Bosnian Muslims to suppose something different.

Kenya (Press Harassment)

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's representations concerning harassment of the press in Kenya.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have repeatedly stressed at the highest levels of the Kenyan Government the importance of a free press.

Sir David Steel: The Minister knows from my question on Monday that I am particularly concerned about the case of Fotoform publishers, in which we have a particular


locus because its managing director is a British citizen. Is he aware that since its presses, which I visited in May, were raided and forced to close, three of the company's publications—Society, Finance and Law Monthly—have been suspended? That is direct harassment of the press. My latest information is that the judgment that should have been delivered yesterday was not forthcoming and that the case is still continuing. Such suppression of the press is outrageous and we have a particular duty to make repeated condemnation of it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am, of course, aware of that case and of the right hon. Gentleman's interest in it. We exchanged words about it on Monday. He will know that we take a strong line about it. I am extremely disappointed that the case was adjourned yesterday. We believe that the legal proceedings should be concluded as soon as possible.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Kenyan Government and other Governments that economic assistance from this country depends on those Governments adhering to basic principles of human and political rights?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. As my hon. Friend is aware, the elections in Kenya were, ultimately, conducted successfully, even though in the run-up to them there was cause for concern. The Government and the International Monetary Fund have made it clear to the Kenyan Government that further balance of payments support depends on their complying with a shadow programme that they have negotiated with the IMF.

Israel (EC Application)

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with Israel's application for associate member status with the EC.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The 1975 co-operation agreement provides the present basis of the relationship between the EC and Israel. In 1992, the EC and Israel agreed to examine how those arrangements might be updated. The Commission has had exploratory talks with Israel and will soon propose a draft negotiating mandate to the Council.

Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Minister believe that the economic regeneration of that region is the surest way to achieve stability and lasting peace? If so, will he actively promote—not merely support—Israel's application for associate membership of the EC? Will he further consider the active promotion of Israel's application to join the "Western European and Others" group of the United Nations?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am cautious about using the term "association agreement" because it might imply that EC membership is in prospect when at present it is not. I agree that it is a matter of mutual interest to develop trade relations and better political dialogue.

Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel's application for associate-only status would be considerably reinforced if the British Government would put pressure on the Arab countries to remove their boycott, which harms Israel's economic performance? If Israel now has the imagination to reach genuine and lasting peace with the Palestinians in the present negotiations, the great

prize of the near east common market will be available, including maximum support from the European Community.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I confirm to my hon. Friend that we deplore the Arab boycott of Israel.

Mr. Burden: Does the Minister agree that, if it is reasonable for Israel to seek closer relationships with the European Community, it is reasonable for the international and European communities to seek from Israel reasonable standards of conduct of the sort expected of other countries? That includes ending the economic strangulation of the west bank and Gaza strip, respecting the rights of Palestinians living in the occupied territories, and abiding by international resolutions such as ending the illegal occupation of the west bank and Gaza strip and the illegal annexation of east Jerusalem.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly made it clear that the Israeli defence forces must respect human rights in the occupied territories. We deplore all violence of that nature as well as terrorist activities against Israeli citizens.

Middle East

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the peace process in the middle east; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The 10th round of bilateral negotiations adjourned in Washington on 1 July. The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have reached an important moment. Both sides now face the decision whether to engage in detailed negotiations about interim arrangements in the occupied territories. We think that they should.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the present agreeable climate in the peace process would be better promoted by a constructive dialogue with the newly pragmatic Palestine Liberation Organisation rather than allowing Hammas and fundamentalist groups in the region to continue to pose a dangerous threat to the whole of the middle east?

Mr. Hogg: I certainly think that Hammas poses a threat to the middle east in general and to the peace talks in particular. That is why it is extremely important that urgent progress should be made in the peace negotiations now under way.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Minister agree that the middle east talks are threatened by a three-and-a-half month closure of Gaza which, after 26 years of occupation, does not have the finance to sustain itself and in some cases lacks the basic infrastructure for water, sewerage and a financial system? Does he also agree that, while Israel has a right to legitimate security rightly, as an occupying power it also has a duty to look after the interests of the occupied population? If the Israelis will not help the Gazans, will the Government do something through the EC to help them?

Mr. Hogg: I certainly think that if we are to see progress in the talks it is important that the Palestinians and the Israeli people see that positive advantages are to be gained


from those talks. Therefore, I say to the Government of Israel that they must lift the weight of the occupation—there are various ways in which to do that—and I say to the Palestinians that they must stop the violence.

Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the process of peace negotiations in the middle east depends crucially on the brokering by the United States of a settlement? Will my right hon. and learned Friend put pressure on the United States Government to encourage Israel to bring the future of Jerusalem into the negotiations in a constructive manner?

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree that the role of the United States is critical to a successful outcome of the negotiations. We, the United Kingdom Government, will do what we can to support the process, but our agenda is not separate from that of the United States. The negotiators must hurry, as it is always possible that; if there is no progress the enthusiasm of the United States to remain involved may diminish. I think it is prudent to leave the issue of Jerusalem until last.

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: I wish to raise with you, Madam Speaker, a point of order of which I gave you notice: the apparent conflict between the rulings that you gave yesterday and that Mr. Speaker Weatherill gave some time ago on Standing Order No. 20 and its terms.
In exchanges yesterday, you said:
The matter in question must be urgent, and it must relate to new developments, such as a change of policy."—[Official Report, 13 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 834.]
Standing Order No. 20 states:
On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday a Member rising in his place at the commencement of public business may propose, in an application lasting not more than three minutes, to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration.
I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that the ruling that you gave yesterday, which was initially given by Mr. Speaker Weatherill, does not give that permissive right to hon. Members to move an application for Standing Order No. 20. If your ruling is accepted—I have no reason to think that it is not—it requires amendment of Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I should like advice from you on how such an amendment can be secured, because, unless an amendment is made, it seems that Standing Order No. 20 is in direct conflict with the ruling that you made yesterday and that made by Mr. Speaker Weatherill some years ago.

Mr. David Winnick: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for your letter, and I wish to raise a point of order arising from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Many of us can recall when hon. Members, whether the occupants of the Chair liked it or not, stated at your office that they were going to make an application and, as far as I can recall—the Clerks will no doubt advise if this is wrong—there were no restrictions.
During the 1974–79 period, Conservative Members, when in opposition, used to make four or five applications each day. No doubt on each occasion the Members involved took the view that they stood no chance of succeeding, but there were no restrictions on them trying.
I accept entirely that it was not you, Madam Speaker, but your predecessor who made it more difficult to make applications. However, with all due respect, I wish to ask you when that change was made and what opportunity the House was given to decide, on a vote, whether that should be the case. Undoubtedly, there has been a change, and it is now far more difficult to get permission to move an application under Standing Order No. 20. The matter should be put to the House and a vote taken accordingly.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is an ironic side to this whole episode in connection with Speaker Weatherill. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that, in 1974–79, when a Labour Government were in office, we had to put up with four or five applications a day for SO9s, as they were then called, from Tory Members. The deputy Chief Whip of the Tory party at that time was none other than the man who was later to become Speaker Weatherill, and he organised the SO9s.

Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: rose—

Madam Speaker: Is it the same point?

Mr. Canavan: No.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I shall respond to the point of order. I am not able to relax the practice of the Chair in this matter. Contrary to what some hon. Members said yesterday, that practice has been applied consistently for several years. If I relaxed the practice, the House would be exposed to a spate of three-minute applications which had no possibility of success because they bore no relation to the criteria that I have to apply.
Those criteria are that the matter must be specific, important and urgent, and must be matter for which a Minister has responsibility. Of course, I shall continue to offer constructive suggestions to hon. Members who make Standing Order No. 20 applications so that they might pursue the matter, which I quite understand concerns them, in some other way.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others have said, there was a spate of applications in 1975. By what alchemy, at what point and when was the change made? Who decided it? On reflection, some of us think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right, and that this has all been done by the powers that be since television has been brought in. What it is all about is television at prime time. The question is succinct: how and at what moment was the change made and by whom, and was it made with the authority of the House?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was a Member at that time. If he and all of us reflect, we will remember that, in the period 1978–79, which hon. Members are recalling there was a spate of urgent issues. We all have long enough memories to understand what they were. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about the urgency requirement in a Standing Order No. 20 application, he will find that it is there for him to read. If the House wishes to change our procedures or the Standing Order, which is quite specific, there are ways and means, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for him to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must take other points of order. I have dealt with the previous one. Some hon. Members are taking up the time of the House on a day that is crucial to other hon. Members.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is different from the last one. One of your many onerous duties is to chair the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 states quite clearly that, in making recommendations about the drawing up of parliamentary constituency boundaries, the commission must have regard to local government area boundaries.
Traditionally in Scotland, local government area boundaries have been determined after very careful consideration and, in many cases, after public consultation by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. Major restructuring involving the creation of


new authorities or the abolition of existing ones, has usually been done after careful consideration by some form of independent commission.
However, for the proposals that will be before the House this afternoon, that has not been done. There have been accusations of gerrymandering, and it would put you, Madam Speaker, in an invidious position if the work of your commission, the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland, were prejudiced in any way by the implementation of the gerrymandered local government proposals that will be before the House today.
Will you use your position as Chair of the Scottish Parliamentary Boundary Commission and your good offices to try to bring about some kind of independent commission to study this matter carefully and see that the proposals that will be before the House today are scrapped, or at least shelved until the whole matter of Scottish local government is given the fullest possible consideration by an independent commission chaired by somebody who is neutral and fair-minded, such as your good self?

Madam Speaker: These are still only proposals. The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting points which are better raised in the debate, which, if we ever reach it, will be shortly. He should put his concerns to the Minister at that time.

Mr. John McAllion: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to the amendment tabled today in the name of the Prime Minister, which relates to the debate that we are about to have on Scottish local government? It refers to the Government's White Paper, which contains proposals to set up
a single tier of strong and acceptable all-purpose authorities.
If you read the Government's White Paper, you will find that they are proposing to remove water, police and fire services from those single-tier authorities. Therefore, the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister is misleading and inaccurate, and on that basis will you rule it out of order?

Madam Speaker: As soon as we start the debate, I will give my ruling on the amendment, but we are not in the debate yet.

Mr. Derek Enright: You will recall, Madam Speaker that, some time ago at Question Time, I said to the Minister for Energy that the President of the Board of Trade had dipped his hand in the till of the miners' pensions. The Minister, in the House, vehemently denied that, but in this morning's paper it was admitted that Ministers had urged British Coal to raid the pension funds.
Has the Minister for Energy offered to come to the House to make an apology—

Madam Speaker: Order. What appears in newspapers has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair of the House. All 650 Members could bring in their newspapers and ask me whether I thought they were correct. It is a terrible abuse of the time of the House.

Mr. Enright: It is the court reporter.

Madam Speaker: I do not give a—[Laughter.] I do not care whether it is the court reporter or the most junior reporter on my local paper; it is not an issue for the Chair or for the House.
I had a point f order yesterday from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to which I wish to reply. The hon. Gentleman raised with me the effect of article 21 of the Act of Union on the implementation of the Government's proposals for local government reorganisation in Scotland. As the House is aware, I rule on the orderliness of the business before the House and not on hypothetical questions. I am satisfied that the motion before the House today is perfectly in order. Consideration of the orderliness of a future Local Government (Scotland) Bill will have to wait until the text of the Bill is available and I have been able to see it.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Your ruling is slightly ambiguous. Scottish Members would like to know whether the determination of Scottish local authority boundaries and structure and the future of water supplies will be dictated by the votes of English Members of Parliament in the House, regardless of and notwithstanding the Act of Union.
I thank you for your consideration of the matter, but you will appreciate its importance. If the conventions of the United Kingdom Parliament dictate that English Conservative Members, many rolling in from the liquid dungeons of this place at the end of the day, dictate that—

Madam Speaker: Order. I patiently listened to the hon. Gentleman's point of order. He put it to me clearly, and I took some time in considering it. This is a United Kingdom Parliament, and we all determine together what happens in the various parts of this nation.

Mr. Salmond: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further point of order. I carefully considered the hon. Gentleman's point of order yesterday. I have gone into it thoroughly, and I answered it today by saying that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and every one of us is entitled to make a decision on what comes before the House.

Women into Parliament

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts with a view to increasing the number of women elected to Parliament; and for connected purposes.
By great good fortune, and with the co-operation of the people who arrange ten-minute Bills, today is the birthday of Emmeline Pankhurst—and this year marks the 75th anniversary of women's suffrage. A group of women Members of Parliament from all parties have got together to commemorate those great events to stage an exhibition in the House called "Women into Politics"—which you, Madam Speaker, graciously opened on Monday.
Today, Lady Thatcher, our first woman Prime Minister, unveiled a plaque to suffragettes in St. Stephen's hall. It is the first time that suffragettes have been commemorated in the House.
Since 1918, only 163 women have been elected to Parliament, compared with 3,986 men. Almost half that number of women were in Parliament for only one Session, because they were given marginal seats to fight or were elected at by-elections, and therefore did not spend more than a couple of years here.
Perhaps it is not surprising that there have only been 10 women Cabinet members, while 388 men have served in the Cabinets. One fifth of all women Cabinet Ministers are in office today, and there are still 17 Government Departments without a woman politician, or which have never had a woman politician in them. Women have a view on every subject. How can their views be reflected in legislation if they are not in the room when key decisions about legislation are made?
Things are getting a little better. At the last general election, 60 women were elected—the largest number ever—but they still account for less than 10 per cent. of the membership of the House. It is not true that women do not come forward as candidates. It is just much harder for them to be adopted for safe seats. You, Madam Speaker, tried for 16 years before being elected, and many of us got here almost by a lucky fluke.
Throughout the history of our democracy, women have had to battle for recognition. Until recently, they did not have property rights or the right to their earnings if they were married, and had to fight for a university education and to be accepted into the professions. The suffragettes were not militant feminists, but Christian women who believed that democracy was part of the Christian message, which taught that women were equal to men.
Parliament is still very much a man's world. If women are to make a contribution in their own style, men must accept the need for structures to change. In my time as a Member of Parliament, the need for changing working conditions has been debated but nothing has come of it.
Even the few women who made it to the House have effected profound changes in respect of care of the elderly, children, maternity services and health. Such topics were not considered suitable topics for Parliament to debate before women arrived. They were laughed at or thought too embarrassing to discuss. Women such as Margaret Bondfield, the first woman Cabinet Minister, Eleanor Rathbone, Irene Ward, Megan Lloyd-George and Barbara Castle battled to make this a more caring country.
In the past, Parliament met to raise money to fight the king's wars. Today it meets to raise taxes that are mainly spent on social services and social structures. Those areas are second nature to women because of their upbringing and experience, and ones in which they can make a key contribution to the deliberations of the House.
Historically, Parliament has always been refreshed by the injection of people from different backgrounds. It was once dominated by merchants and landowners. Now, small business men and trade unionists take their place here. Surely now is the time for that trust to extend to the inclusion of far more women in our deliberations. There needs to be a critical mass of women for the priorities in this place to change.
Parliament is broadened by the insights and energies of these newcomers. No one is detracting from existing Members, or the contributions made by men, but stating that women have a key economic role to play, not just outside but inside this building. It is time for us to encourage more women into the House.
Women have all the qualities necessary to be Members of Parliament—not that those qualities are exceptional—and we will know that women have really reached their place in our political community when they are allowed to be as mediocre as some of the men who occupy these Benches.
There is not a level playing field between men and women when it comes to selection for parliamentary seats. If there were, there would be no need for my Bill. Different parties address the matter in different ways. Some parties consider the possibility of quotas, others proportional representation, and still others may—like Bernard Shaw—recommend a coupled vote.
A Parliament with more women would be more equitable, and would more fairly reflect the changes that have taken place in society, particularly in the lives and status of women. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the principles that I have outlined in my Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: It is with some diffidence that I oppose the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
I sympathise with much of what my hon. Friend and her supporters seek to achieve, but I disagree fundamentally with the method that they have chosen to achieve those objectives—that of tinkering with our present electoral system, which is epitomised in the Representation of the People Acts.
One of the greatest strengths of our democratic system is the single-member constituency. I have always opposed any suggestion of introducing proportional representation. It would divide the electorate, so that, for example, Conservative voters would approach a Conservative Member of Parliament to deal with their problems, socialist voters would approach a socialist Member of Parliament and Liberal voters would approach a Liberal Member of Parliament.
A secondary result would be that even more power would be put in the hands of the party hierarchy over the selection of candidates, and that centre of decision-making would be taken away from where it should rightly be, at grass-roots level in the constituencies. The people who live


in an area should have the freedom to choose an individual to represent them, whether that individual be male or female.
Our existing arrangements for electoral representation have worked well, and have not debarred women from coming forward as candidates. Women Members have made a considerable contribution to the House, to the political life of the country and to society as a whole. With you in the Chair, Madam Speaker, hon. Members are continually reminded that it is possible for women to achieve the highest and most influential of offices, and to fulfil the ensuing responsibilities with great distinction.
I remind the House that the Head of State and the head of the established Church in this country is a woman. Until relatively recently, we had our first woman Prime Minister, who was outstanding in terms of both leadership and intellect. Currently, two members of the Cabinet are women, seven members of the Government are women and 59 right hon. and hon. Members are women. The leaders of countless county borough and parish councils are women. The hard-working grass-roots majority of the membership, certainly of the Conservative party, are women.
If we consider the gradual manner in which our parliamentary democracy came into being over a period of centuries and the way in which the franchise was extended from a limited number to include all adults, we see that the speed with which women have, in the last few decades, alone, seized the initiative is truly remarkable. The enthusiasm of my hon. Friend further to hasten this process by any form of positive discrimination should not be allowed to undermine the progress which has been made, or to alter the Representation of the People Acts, which are one of the foundation stones upon which our system of free elections is based.
I support 100 per cent. any attempt to encourage more women Members into this House of Commons, but I completely oppose any attempt to change the rules, to fiddle the rules, to enable them so to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mrs. Ray Michie.

WOMEN INTO PARLIAMENT

Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the Peoples Acts with a view to increasing the number of women elected to Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 July, and to be printed. [Bill 238.]

Orders of the Day — OPPOSITION DAY

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Orders of the Day — Local Government and Water (Scotland)

Madam Speaker: I have looked at the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. It is perfectly in order and has been selected for debate.
May I make a plea at this stage for short speeches? There are a great many Members in all parts of the House who wish to speak in the debate.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move,
That this House notes the publication of the White Paper `Shaping the Future-The New Councils'; considers that these proposals have been brought forward without adequate consultation, and represent costly and unnecessary changes not sustained by general support for their introduction; condemns the blatant manipulation of boundaries for narrow party interests, consistent with an approach to the governance of Britain which centralises power and disregards the basic consensus necessary to a healthy democracy; welcomes the success of the public campaign against outright privatisation of water, but notes the continuing threat to the future of these services posed by the proposals in the White Paper to remove them from local authority control; and demands that Her Majesty's Government withdraws the White Paper, establishes an independent Commission to review the whole question of local government in Scotland, retains water and sewerage in local authority control, and makes proper provision for adequate investment in these services.
I ought to say that we intend to oppose the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.
There is a widespread belief that Scotland is usually the first to be at the receiving end of this Government's most damaging initiatives. That is certainly true of the discredited poll tax and the discredited Ministers who supported it, but the Secretary of State for Scotland can make no plea of mitigation in respect of local government and water privatisation. He already knows of the disasters that followed that elsewhere in the United Kingdom. He also knows now that Scotland is at the end of the queue.
What the Secretary of State announced last Thursday was not the product of original thought on his part. His announcement consisted of two proposals: to rearrange the map of Scottish local government to the advantage of his party, and to move a step closer to the selling of Scottish water. Both proposals have already been visited on other parts of the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland, having seen the so-called future, in Tory eyes, know that it does not work.
The fact is that the Government have one overriding conviction, and have adopted it in Scotland as well: if they cannot win elections, abolish them—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), must know that they won 11 out of 72 seats in Scotland and that they have a mere 16 per cent. of support, according to the opinion polls, among the people of Scotland—hardly a mandate to do anything in Scotland, far less to impose this nonsense upon us.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.
We saw their solution to the problems that democracy poses. The Greater London council, the metropolitan counties and the Inner London education authority caused problems for the Tories and were abolished. Scotland has now been presented with the same sort of treatment.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman referred to 11 Tory Members from Scotland. How many Scottish seats did he forecast the Tory party would get before the general election? Will he note that we achieved 25 per cent. of the vote at the general election?

Mr. Clarke: One thing that I will forecast is that, even with the gerrymandering, the Tories will not get in next time. They know that they cannot win Strathclyde, Lothian, Central or Fife, they suffered humiliating losses in Tayside, Grampian, Dumfries and Galloway and they did not do all that well in the district elections.
What is their answer? It is the same one as we have seen before—the London solution: sweep them away. They respond to the problem of voters who continue to elect Labour councils by creating safe havens for themselves. What is much worse is that they take away from councils as many powers and services as possible, reduce democratic accountability and prepare for sell-offs to the highest bidders.
On water and sewerage, the House will know that there was not a hint in the Tory manifesto at the general election in Scotland of the Government's proposals on water privatisation, or a suggestion that water would be up for sale. Most people in Scotland—indeed, 98 per cent.—believe that water is a gift from God.
Last Thursday, the Government stopped short—but not far short—of selling off water as a result of the Scottish people's influence and determination, not because there was a sudden change on the road to Damascus on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
A few days before the House returned after the summer recess last year, and at considerable expense to taxpayers, the Secretary of State launched a glossy document in Glasgow. The document was full of marks, photographs and nice graphics, and even contained an explanation of why it rains in Scotland. Following that, a firm of consultants was commissioned, at a cost to the taxpayers of upwards of £100,000. It caused months of deep uncertainty among workers and consumers, and nearly 3,000 replies were received, of which only 1 per cent. favoured privatisation. All of that, for what?
The document that we saw last week was not even a full page—it had a mere four paragraphs on water. However, it still managed to disguise the real thinking of the Secretary of State on the matter. Why did he not tell us that water and sewerage will be left in the hands of democratically elected local authorities?
Those local authorities have 150 years of service in protecting the public in terms of health. They know about investment, and they know that they are entitled to protect God's gift to Scotland, as the Scottish people see it. The Government's determination to move in and profiteer is not welcomed either in Ayr or elsewhere.
The Secretary of State said that the public ownership of three new water companies can be combined with a major role for the private sector in providing and financing much

of the essential and large capital investment programme that is needed over the next decade. Therefore, the private companies will be providers as well as providing finance.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us how that will work. What is the difference between the franchising option and what he suggested last Thursday? Nothing in the White Paper suggests that he has abandoned all hope of privatisation. We have seen a U-turn, but one that will last only to this side of the next election, as we saw in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has been less than honest in Scotland, so let us be clear that his paving Bill will be a major issue at the next general election in Scotland, and we will, of course, invite the Scottish people to decide.
As with water, the Government cannot conceal how they see the role of local government. For the Labour party, that role is about democracy, it is about elected councillors, it is about serving the local community, it is about accountability, and it is about sustaining high standards of services. They are all noble ideals that were once accepted as a consensus by all political parties on behalf of the Scottish people.
For the Government, in their miserable documents, that role is about centralisation, about competitive tendering and, in the end, about local councils organising meetings to award contracts to people who are not accountable to anybody.
The Government issued another glossy document in the past year with a flourish of publicity, including the publication of a video that I understand was called "Lang—the Movie". Civil servants advised the Secretary of State, so in future Ministers may take more account of advice from elsewhere. We were told that "Lang—the Movie" cost £25,000—many will ask if the right hon. Gentleman's presentation was worth that amount. All that was missing was Scarlett O'Hara saying that the Scottish people could not give a damn about his proposals.
That costly exercise offered the Scottish people options of 24 or 35 or 51 authorities. Did the Government respond to the replies? No, not really. They were not responding to people's replies to the various options. During that apology for a consultation exercise, the Government had their own ideas, and those ideas related not to what the people of Scotland wanted, and certainly not to an independent commission, but to a small minority view that coincides with what appear to be the interests of a small number of Tory Members.
During that important consultation on the future of local government, Ministers have been both prosecutors and jury, while the people had no right of appeal.

Sir David Steel: In support of the hon. Gentleman, he will remember the sentence in the White Paper that says:
The Government recognise the time and effort devoted to preparing these reponses, and have examined them with great care".
The responses have been on public view in St. Andrew's house over the past week. There were 108 submissions in the Borders, which have been examined, and of those only three support the proposals advanced by the Government to take Berwickshire out of the Borders region. Not surprisingly, the three who support it are the Conservative group on Berwickshire district council, the Conservative group on Lothian regional council and a single Conservative councillor. Is that public consultation?

Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman has done a service to the House in exposing what amounts to a disgraceful exercise. I invite the Secretary of State to publish not only those documents to which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) referred, but other documents that are relevant to our discussions.
The Government claim that there is no evidence of gerrymandering, yet since Thursday—again I challenge the Secretary of State to deny this when he replies—not one independent commentator has been willing to say that the Government's exercise was not influenced by party political considerations alone.
Arthur Midwinter, an academic expert so clearly regarded as non-partisan as to be invited to the Prime Minister's breakfast sitting and invited to give advice during the state visit in the past year, said:
Stirling, East Renfrewshire, Berwickshire and East Lothian represented Toytown councils.
If I am mistaken about the influences on the Government, perhaps the Secretary of State, after his wide-ranging consultation, will tell us which serious commentator or advisory body, other than the Tory party, advised him to put Helensburgh into Argyll, to take Musselburgh out of East Lothian or to put Barrhead into Greater Eastwood. If he will do so, I am happy to give way.
I am happy to give way to him if he can name a single independent body that supports the proposals. I am happy to give way even to his sidekick, the hon. Member for Eastwood, if he will tell us of any independent body that supported such a view. The fact is, as is clear from the silence, that nobody did, because nobody would support a proposal so reeking of political corruption and so consistent with party political advantage. I am still happy to give way.
The House can reach only one conclusion—that the Secretary of State is the "Jim'll Fix It" of Scottish politics. He has fixed it for the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), he has fixed it for the hon. Member for Eastwood, and he thinks that he has fixed it for the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). He certainly has not fixed it for the Scottish people, because they have fixed it for him. As someone else might have said at the Dispatch Box, never in the history of local government reform has so much been owed by so few to so few.
Let us consider the carve-up of Renfrewshire. West Renfrewshire has three times the population of East Renfrewshire. No doubt Eastwood has a consideration in these matters, and no doubt we shall get an impartial explanation of how such a conclusion was reached. North Ayrshire includes Cumnock and Doon Valley in the south, and is more than three times as large as South Ayrshire. There is a farcical situation in the Lothians. West Lothian is physically separated from Midlothian, and Musselburgh and Prestonpans are thrown in for good measure. West Lothian is three times as large as Berwickshire and East Lothian.
Are we to conclude that it is now official policy that three voters for a Labour council may be compared with one for a Tory council? That is hardly a model for a modern democracy. Stirling, the model toytown council, spent a year—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Eastwood is being so provocative, I shall spell it out again, especially as I have no wish to misquote Professor Midwinter.
Stirling, the model toytown council, spent a year selling everything in sight, no doubt on the advice of the hon. Member for Stirling. I have no doubt that the Government want to do the same to regional services. We are entitled to ask seriously, because the voters of Stirling regard the matter as serious, whether such a small council will begin to take responsibilities for education and social work.
Twenty years ago, the Wheatley report said that an ideal size of council area for social work was 200,000 people. The Secretary of State has often said that the regions have achieved quality of service and identity with local communities. The same is true of education, in terms of economies of scale, delegation of management, direct accountability of staff to councillors and direct accountability of councillors to voters, which the Secretary of State has told us his proposals are all about. Those factors represent a successful recipe for the delivery of strategic services.
The most important question before the House is whether the quality of services and their delivery will be met by the Government's proposals. In social work, what evidence is there to overturn Wheatley? Wheatley, after a long period of consideration and genuine consultation, produced an excellent report, not a sham report based on narrow political dogma.
Where is the evidence that social work departments are better and stronger if they are smaller? Where is the evidence that they can provide the necessary services? Where is the evidence that the needs of the vulnerable who are suffering under the Government's so-called policy on community care will be met by the Government's proposals? Since we are dealing with people who have to work with much larger health boards—in terms of co-operation with community care—perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us more about how he expects the system to work.
Since we are told that the Government are also willing to leave such important matters as education to local authorities, what guarantees are there that the people of Scotland will avoid the bitter experience of those in inner London? The Government argued that abolishing the Inner London education authority would cut costs—something that Tory Ministers repeatedly told us would work—and Ministers are telling us the same of our future in Scotland, but they must know that, in London, the opposite has happened. London boroughs, forced to duplicate central administration and to increase bureaucracy, have upped the number of managers by 67 per cent., which would blow the Government's costing to smithereens. Inner London boroughs were forced to duplicate specialist education services or to abandon them.
Perhaps we shall hear evidence today of what will happen to youth work in Scotland, to adult education and to special needs, based on the inner London experience, which no Secretary of State worth his salt would wish to emulate. When so many young Scots are imperilled by unemployment and drug-related crimes, community education and youth work may be among the victims of the Government's ideological obsessions. That is another reason why the people of Scotland find the Government's proposals so unattrative.
Last week, we had a short exchange in the House about transitional costs. I invite the Secretary of State to be more forthcoming today. We are told that, on the Government's estimate, the transitional cost would be about £200 million. Since, in response to my hon. Friend the Member


for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), he made it clear that that would have to be found from other elements of the Scottish Office budget, will he tell us which parts of that budget will be cut?
Which services will lose £200 million to pay for the schemes? When the Treasury is clawing back every penny, threatening pensions and benefits, imposing a new tax on people heating their homes and so on, why does the Secretary of State feel that it is the right time to spend £200 million on such an exercise?
All that unnecessary expenditure will not provide a single extra police officer on the beat, a single extra teacher in a school or a single extra home help for the most needy. There is nothing in the proposals that would save a single Tory seat. The Government are unashamedly offering us a two-tier system, but it is based on joint boards, on buying in services and on competitive tendering—a system in which the Secretary of State takes decisions and even makes appointments. Few Hon. Members understand how he can justify that on the basis of democracy.
Only one of the many organisations providing services will be directly accountable to the community. When numerous submissions were made to the Secretary of State, why did he disregard the importance of accountability? Was not that the strong view of the local community councils, of the elected councils, at district, regional and island level? Was not that the strong view of virtually all the voluntary organisations in Scotland, which see the need for positive local government and for co-ordinating activity locally and nationally?
The fact is that the Government are seeking to impose on the people of Scotland without adequate examination or independent assessment a system of government which, as we have seen in the gerrymandering of the proposals for Stirling, Eastwood, Lothian, and even Aberdeen, could have been thought up only by narrow-minded people in Conservative central office. That is not a recipe for success for the future of democracy or local government in Scotland.
The Secretary of State may not wish to be reminded of this, but it was Wheatley himself, who had more experience in these matters than the whole Tory Front Bench put together, who defined local democracy as
to ensure that the effective power of decision in local matters rests on an elected council directly accountable to the electorate for the exercise of that power.
How can we have that measure of direct accountability over education, the police and the fire service in Strathclyde, not to speak of the assessor's role? How can we have that measure of accountability when sprinkled throughout the document is the Secretary of State's determination to take upon himself even more powers, especially in relation to joint planning, than those he has now?
The Government's proposals are not about reforming local government, but about enfeebling it. It is about the betrayal of Scotland, yes, and Conservative promises to listen to the Scottish people. Above all, the latest in a series of cynical manoeuvres by which the Conservative party has overridden the wishes of local people expressed through the ballot box is the Government's response of removing the ballot box itself.
This is a foolish and dangerous course to follow. I hope that the Secretary of State will not mind if I refer to my

local government experience. There are many who have contributed to local government and who in a democracy are entitled to expect their views to be heard. Democracy depends on consent. Consent depends on those in power playing by the rules. By changing the rules to suit itself, the Conservative party is putting democracy itself at risk. That is the reason why we have tabled this motion today.
I call upon the Government today, knowing that we carry the overwhelming support of the Scottish people—

Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way—to recognise the importance of Scotland's deep commitment to these democratic principles and to withdraw their proposals.

Mr. Riddick: rose—

Mr. Clarke: If they will not do so, I call upon the people of Scotland to resist and oppose them in every way and to stop them in every way possible. In that, they can be assured that they can depend on the support of the Labour party, and in due course of a Scottish Parliament—which the right hon. Gentleman's absurd proposals, happily, have made even more inevitable.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the motion, and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the publication of the White Paper "Shaping the Future-The New Councils"; and considers that its proposals will lead to better and more efficient local government in Scotland, based on a single tier of strong and accountable all-purpose authorities.'.
I welcome the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) back to Parliament—safe back from his little jaunt to Downing street. Last Thursday, he quoted what Oliver Cromwell said to the Rump Parliament in 1653:
In the name of God, go!"—[Official Report, 8 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 35.]
I thought that it was singularly inapt, but when he picked up his papers and left the Chamber I realised that he was talking to himself. It is a pity that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was not at home. He is back from Tokyo now, if the hon. Gentleman would like to go again. Certainly the cameras were there in plenty. Indeed, the cameras were everywhere.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman now.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State appears not to be giving way. Is that correct?

Mr. Lang: That is correct.
One of my hon. Friends at the St. Stephen's entrance was greeted by a cameraman asking, "Is this the entrance for the spontaneous Labour walk-out?" When the hon. Member for Monklands, West got to Downing street, he had his photograph taken with the policeman on the door, just as Harold Wilson once did when he was a boy. When Harold Wilson grew up, he went into politics, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman should do the same.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Lang: No, I will not give way.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has his troubles at present. After all, we have it on the authority of the Daily Express in an article of 14 June headed, "Labour enemy within". It says:
Militant is on the march again. When Labour's shadow Scottish Secretary, Tom Clarke, turned up to canvas support during the Easterhouse council by-election, he was cheered to the rafters.
It turned out that it was thought that the right hon. Member was the comedian, Andy Cameron. When it turned out to be the comedian, Tom Clarke, the article said:
Their tears turned to unprintable forms of welcome.
All the comings and goings of the hon. Gentleman remind me of the doggerel by Mr. Hughes Mearns:
As I was going up the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again to-day.
I wish, I wish he'd stay away.
Judging by the hon. Gentleman's speech today, he was not there again today.
I am glad that we have this early opportunity for a debate, but it is a pity that the Opposition thought that it was only worth half a day of debate. [Interruption.] It takes half a day to read the motion, which is perhaps why Opposition Members have not bothered to read it.
The motion talks about inadequate consultation. The hon. Member for Monklands, West tried to make much of that. I remind the House that we have had no fewer than four consultation papers over the past two years on different aspects of local government reform. We have had nearly 9,000 replies, some of them immensely thorough and detailed, and we have looked at them carefully. In addition, there have been many newspaper and media articles and surveys.
If one doubted the need for single-tier local government and the advantages of it, and the confusion and difficulty that arises from the two-tier structure, one need look no further than the ICM poll in The Scotsman of 9 March. It revealed that one quarter of Scots did not know that cleansing was a district council responsibilty; one third of Scots did not know that housing was a district council responsibility; and no fewer than 40 per cent.—getting on for half the population—did not realise that education, the biggest single local authority service, is a regional authority.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Perhaps he will now answer the question that he did not answer last week about how he arrived at the conclusion that Westhill should be incorporated into the city of Aberdeen. Since then, there has been outrage in the daily newspapers in Aberdeen—and from many Tory councilors—that he is gerrymandering. Westhill does not want to be part of Aberdeen. Is not that typical of the way in which he has totally ignored the views of ordinary people in every part of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: If the outrage is coming from Tory councillors, I am not quite sure how I can be accused of gerrymandering. The fact is that there are many proposals on aspects of local government reform for which there is support and opposition in different parts of Scotland. We shall have ample opportunity to debate all of those during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, and the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his point.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Secretary of State care to comment on the remarks made by one of his Scottish Tory colleagues, Mr. Brian Meek, a former distinguished Tory group leader on Lothian regional council? Writing in The Herald on Monday of this week, he said:
So let us go on to the gerrymandering argument. Did Mr. Lang and his Ministers seek to give their party the best possible chance under the new set-up? Of course they did. Why shouldn't they?
Is that not a remarkable confession of guilt by one of the Secretary of State's own party colleagues?

Mr. Lang: It is not for me to decide whether the correspondent of The Herald, Mr. Meek, is confessing to guilt of anything. He is answerable for what he says in his columns. I am answerable for what I propose to the House.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: rose—

Mr. Lang: No, I must make a little more progress. As for the popularity of single-tier local government, the System 3 poll in The Herald showed support for single-tier up from 37 to 46 per cent., substantially the most popular option of those addressed.
The Labour party's contribution to the debate during the consultation period was almost zero. It is the party of scaremongers and has made no constructive contribution to the debate. We have had nothing but talk of hidden agendas. It was said that we would create a national police force, but our paper today demonstrates that to be wrong. Not only will there be no national police force, but there will be the same number of police forces as before.
The Labour party said that we would privatise water and sewerage—wrong again. We have established three public water authorities firmly in public ownership, maximising the efficiency gains to be had in the delivery of water and sewerage and benefiting from private sector funds for investment.
The Labour party said that there would he massive spending cuts—wrong again. Local authority spending will continue to rise. Private sector investment in water and sewerage will relieve pressure on our resources by billions of pounds.

Mr. Tony Worthington: The Secretary of State says that this is a single-tier system. Will he explain to the ordinary person in the street how his water, sewerage, education, police and fire services will be run in a single-tier system?

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman listens to my speech and subsequently takes part in the debate on the Bill as it goes through Parliament, all those questions will be answered. At the moment, I am dealing with all the scares and alarms raised by the Labour party in the past few months. Labour Members should be hanging their heads in shame at the sort of things they have said to cause scare, alarm and anxiety among the Scottish people.
Labour Members talked of a massive increase in joint boards. We had it again from the hon. Member for Monklands, West today. The fact is that the only major services that will be subject to joint boards will be the police and fire services, as at present. They talked about huge centralisation. Again, we had it today from the hon. Gentleman. Again, that is not so. All the major services, with the exception of water and sewerage, which we had clearly flagged as being subject to unavoidable alternative


arrangements, will stay with local authorities. The greater integration of services and the decentralisation from the regional level to the single-tier, all-purpose authorities will, in many cases, be the reverse of the centralisation that was proposed.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lang: No, I will not.
Then there was the scare of the great Treasury veto. In The Herald on 3 September the hon. Member for Monklands, West said:
The Scottish Secretary, Ian Lang, will not be able to deliver the changes because of a Treasury veto.
That was around the time that he came forward with three successive forecasts of extra costs ranging from £400 million to £500 million to £600 million—wrong, wrong and wrong. There has been no Treasury veto and no extra costs. Rather, there will be savings of up to £1 billion over 15 years.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Secretary of State intend to transfer all existing water services to the new water boards, or does he intend to write off part or all of that debt? What categories of person will he be nominating for those water boards?

Mr. Lang: Those are precisely the kind of points that it is perfectly proper to raise and which we shall consider when we draw up the proposals that we shall bring forward in due course, when the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to debate them.
On costs and savings, I was interested to see that Dundee district council estimated that the new arrangements proposed in Tayside would save some £1·8 million per annum. Angus district council, the hon. Gentleman's own authority, estimated a saving of £2·3 million for the same arrangements. In Fife, Dunfermline district council estimated a saving of £8 million per annum from an all-purpose Fife authority, and North-East Fife district council estimated the same. Therefore, there is a cross-party consensus across those authorities on the kind of savings that will be available.
With regard to job losses—another scare raised by the Labour party—it turns out that rather than the substantial number of job losses of which Labour Members spoke, there will be a maximum of some 2,200. If one compares that with the burgeoning employment figures and bureaucracy in local government that I discovered only yesterday—last year alone, employment in local authorities rose by no less than 4,854, a rise of 2 per cent. at a time of recession and public expenditure restraint—one puts into clearer perspective the kind of saving of less than 1 per cent. that it has been suggested will be the result of job losses arising from reform.
Strathclyde's Labour leader surpasses even the hon. Member for Monklands, West when he talks about extra costs and extra job losses and plucks out of the air a figure of 20,000. He might have had some tiny shred of credibility had he argued for one or the other, but he cannot have it both ways. If reform can save 20,000 jobs, local authorities must be inefficient at present, in which case savings—not extra costs—are a certainty.

Mr. Thomas Graham: If the Secretary of State is so sure that his proposals are

right for Scotland, why does not he test them at the ballot box and give Scotland the opportunity of a multi-referendum that could include his proposals for local government? Is not it the case that he will not do that because the proposals would be binned by the people of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: The Government are answerable at the ballot box by elections to this Parliament for everything that we do.
The Opposition have been scaremongering about jobs, costs and other issues that they have raised to create distraction and misunderstanding about the proposals. It is disgraceful that Labour leaders seek only to instill alarm and despondency among local government staff whose interests they claim to protect. Now, as if the palpable failure of all their scares was not enough, the Opposition raise the spectre of gerrymandering. I reject that charge. Our proposals are largely based on the existing building blocks of regions and districts. Four existing regions survive largely intact and many more districts have had their powers enhanced greatly.
By abolishing the two-tier structure and by lifting the baleful socialist shadow which stretches across the central belt of Scotland and far beyond to the outlying areas, we shall enable those areas to break free and assert their own varied political allegiances, whether those may be Liberal, Conservative independent or nationalist. That is not gerrymandering—it is a healthy strengthening of local democracy in all its diversity.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Secretary of State's last phrase was about the "healthy strengthening of local democracy". He specifically mentioned many cases from the blueprint of the enhanced powers that are to be given to the districts. Does he recognise that neither description can be applied to the highlands, where all existing districts are to be abolished and one council is to cover the region?
The Secretary of State's statement last week laid great emphasis on the way in which he would require decentralisation within the new authorities. He did not emphasise paragraph 3.5 of page 5 of the White Paper, which concerns decentralisation schemes. The White Paper is, interestingly, coloured blue. It says:
Guidance will be issued to local authorities on how they might develop these schemes but the initiative will rest with the new councils and schemes will not require the approval of the Secretary of State.
What possible satisfaction or guarantee can constituents across the highlands take from that worthless statement?

Mr. Lang: I have considerable sympathy for some of the circumstances in the highlands. I also note the hon. Gentleman's interest in imposing control over local government. I believe that local government should be allowed as much discretion as possible. I draw comfort from the words of the convener of Highland regional council. He has made it abundantly clear how strongly his local authority, like many others in Scotland, is committed to decentralisation.
I was addressing the baleful influence of socialism across the central belt of Scotland and beyond. I suggest that the Labour party is gerrymandering in reverse. It seeks to keep in place the distorted instruments of its unfair hegemony over central Scotland. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. So many hon. Gentleman are rising that no one can hear who wants to intervene.

Mr. Lang: The Opposition do not like the truth—they know how much it hurts.
Under the two-tier structure, Scotland has suffered double jeopardy under Labour. Labour has exercised control, if not through the districts then through the regions, in ways that have smothered local politics and local economies.
Since the Opposition's claims last week—this point was raised by the hon. Member for Monklands, West in his speech—I have checked on some figures. In the regional elections in 1990, the votes cast and seats gained revealed that it took 3,133 votes to elect a Labour councillor, 6,419 to elect a Conservative and even more to elect a Scottish Nationalist. That means that it is more than twice as hard for a Conservative councillor to be elected as it is for a Labour councillor. The picture in district councils is broadly the same, so what we are hearing is not the high tone of principle but the shrill cries of vested interests being dislodged.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way at long last. It was rather unfortunate that he cited personal attacks, probably leaked by the Scottish Office itself to cheap newspapers, in defence of his speech. He said that one should become "adapt" at responding to the facts—I think that he meant "adept". He gave figures on voting at local elections, but will be explain why the Conservative party contests so few seats? Why is it that where it contested seats there seems to be more representation but where it did not field candidates the local authorities seem much larger?

Mr. Lang: I said neither "adept" nor "adapt" when referring to the hon. Gentleman's quotation; I said inept—[Laughter]—inapt, but I could as easily have said "inept". The hon. Gentleman proves it again.

Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we make it clear that we all heard the Secretary of State say "inapt", which perfectly describes his speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If all sides are agreed on what was said, Hansard will have recorded it—

Dr. Reid: Even if there is no such word?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not need any help from the hon. Gentleman. If all sides are not agreed, we shall have to go by what Hansard says.

Mr. Lang: I welcome the Labour party's predictions about the Conservative success that it thinks will flow from the proposals, although the Labour party's attitude is strangely defeatist.
Let us consider what the claim of our likely political success under the new system implies: either it means that thousands of Conservative voters have, in effect, been disenfranchised by the present structure and will now be liberated or that our proposals will be popular and will win support in Scotland. I can face either conclusion with complete equanimity.
I will take no lectures on gerrymandering from any Member of Parliament for Monklands, an area in which one group of Labour councillors stands accused by

another group of Labour councillors of showing bias in capital allocations. How does that administration explain the fact that for every £1 of capital resources allocated to Airdrie, £10 is allocated to Coatbridge? We will protect the interests of all residents of all parties in Monklands, and under our proposals Monklands district council will be abolished.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lang: No, I will not give way because I have already done so many times.
Where do the Opposition parties stand on our proposals for local government reform? The hon. Member for Monklands, West said on television last week that the Labour party was absolutely committed to reversing our reforms. Yet in the House the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) expressed his
great satisfaction at the restoration of a single tier authority for … Aberdeen".
The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) said that he had
always advocated an all-purpose authority for the city of Dundee".
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) welcomed our recognition in the White Paper that
Cambuslang and Rutherglen are separate communities in their own right."—[Official Report, 8 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 478–82.]
The hon. Member for Monklands, West is committed to
blocking, frustrating and sabotaging our proposals, yet only last Friday the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities had a productive and constructive meeting with my hon. Friend and myself at which it asked for a further meeting and agreed to co-operate through a working party on finance in studying costings.
Only today in The Herald, under the heading "Labour Councils Smooth Lang's Way", we learn that four councils in the Central region yesterday announced
that they had signed a management agreement designed to smooth the way for the creation of single tier councils in their area.
The Daily Record, which is no friend of the Conservative party, states:
A giant hole has been blasted in Labour's campaign against Scots local government changes.
Yet it is the chief executives who have made the agreement,
although the Daily Record states—so I presume it is true—that they were backed by their political leaders, the council leaders, even though Central, Clackmannan and Falkirk are Labour controlled. That is less than 24 hours after Scottish Labour leaders pledged a non-co-operation pact involving Members of Parliament, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and COSLA. The fact is that the Opposition parties are all over the place, but those local authorities are being a great deal more responsible.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Perhaps the Secretary of State has not heard that the chief executives of the four authorities, including Stirling which is Conservative controlled, have today issued a statement saying:
We reject any implication that our actions in issuing the joint protocol provide either support, co-operation, corroboration or agreement with the Government proposals.

Mr. Lang: That is absolutely fine, but the fact is that they are doing it and are being much more responsible


than the Opposition, because they care about the delivery of local services in local government. The Labour party's shiny new slogan is "Bring back Strathclyde". If that is how Labour want to fight the next general election, it will be very interesting.
As well as reversing our proposals, Labour has a second policy. It wants to establish a commission, "an independent Labour commission" no less—presumably one which, to quote Harold Wilson, would take minutes and waste years.
We must have some clarification about the commission. Is it the same commission that Labour set up to consider a separate Scottish Parliament, or is it a separate commission? If so, would it not be more sensible to call it a convention to avoid confusion, or is there still a convention in being?
Which will come first—the commission or the legislation to reinstate the two-tier structure? Or will we have both together so that while Labour is legislating to set up the two-tier structure, it will also be setting up a commission to investigate whether it is a good idea to abolish the two-tier structure and, if so, what to put in its place? Perhaps Labour will also tell us how long the commission will take—five, 10, 15 or 20 years. Does it care?

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would a serious discussion of these matters not at least pay tribute to the considerable, although not perfect, achievements of Strathclyde and Lothian? Will the Secretary of State take it from me, in view of my particular political history, that what he is doing is inflicting grave injury on the Union?

Mr. Lang: I can only say that I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member. I am absolutely convinced that our proposals for the reform of local government will greatly strengthen local government, local democracy and good government in Scotland, which can only enhance the Union.
The real significance of the Labour party's pledge to establish a commission is that, beneath all the fumbling and stumbling, it is committing itself to a single-tier local government structure for Scotland. Usually, Labour's U-turns take about four years; this time, it has taken about four days. If the Labour party is serious about local government reform—its proposal for a commission suggests that it is—all that distinguishes us is disagreement over some aspects of the map.
It is time for the Labour party to raise the tone of its involvement in the debate and get away from its narrow party self-interest. Above all, let us hear some concern from the Labour party about the quality of services on which so many local people depend. A single-tier structure will provide a significant opportunity to improve further the quality and delivery of services. The integration of services that are currently divided between two sources clearly promises improved efficiency and co-ordination as well as cost savings. Housing and social work, or trading standards and environmental health, are just two examples of how better co-ordination can lead to better services.
There are also opportunities through proposals for decentralised management to improve the quality of local government. New authorities developing schemes of decentralisation in decision making, consultation,

administration and greater access are going with the grain of local authority thinking. Many are already working on such schemes. There is a widely recognised potential that more can be done. Why should one have to go to Dumfries for the replacement of a broken street light if one lives in Stranraer? Why should one have to go to one council for a council house and to another for a home help?
There are new opportunities in local government in Scotland, but a change of philosophy and a flexible approach—things which the Labour party seems unable to comprehend—are needed to enable local services to be delivered in place of the old, rigid empires of direct service providers. I want to see local authorities liberated. I want to see a new era in which local government becomes a watchword for quality and efficiency. I want local authorities to be a source of pride and loyalty in their communities. I want them to provide exciting career opportunities for those who work in them.
That is the future which Conservatives seek to build for local democracy in Scotland—strong, all-purpose authorities that truly reflect the diversity and the qualities of all the varied parts of Scotland. On that positive note, I urge the House to reject this destructive and negative motion and to support the amendment.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I agree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that the Secretary of State's is just the kind of speech and that these are just the kind of proposals that bring the Government and the House into disrepute in Scotland. If there had been any genuine consultation about the way in which the review of the structure of Scottish local government should be conducted, the Government could not possibly have come up with proposals such as those that we are contemplating now.
For example, surely they could not have overlooked the obvious distinction between East Lothian and Berwickshire. East Lothian and Berwickshire have always been, and always will be, distinct entities. The only way round that would be to rewrite the history of Scotland and to bulldoze the Lammermuir hills into the sea. The distinctions between the three counties in the Lothians and the four counties of the Borders could not be clearer. That is the message that I have been getting from all sorts of people on both sides of the Lammermuirs ever since these bizarre proposals came to light a couple of weeks ago.
Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland has created certain difficulties and embarrassments for his Conservative colleagues on East Lothian district council. They attended a council meeting in Haddington this morning, where their line was that they had no choice but to accept the Secretary of State's proposals although they opposed the idea of dividing East Lothian. That is their problem.

Mr. James Wallace: This is liberating local government.

Mr. Home Robertson: It is debilitating local government. It is an illustration of the crazy situation that the Secretary of State is bringing about.
Perhaps I should quote local papers in East Lothian and the Borders, which traditionally support the Conservative party. Last week's leader in the East Lothian Courier said:
A wedding of the two counties would make nonsense of the word 'reorganisation' in virtually every sense, other than the narrow party political interest … Mr. Lang will hear the beat of the tom-tom and realise that the worst criticisms of the Opposition parties are shared by the man in the street, as well as many of his supporters.
South of the Lammermuirs, the leader in the Berwickshire News, which is headed "We must remain in the Borders", said that the proposed amalgamation
certainly smacks of political opportunism.
Indeed it does.
The Secretary of State is proposing two amazing new local councils to cover my constituency. Both of them would be beyond the political creativity of even the celebrated Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, the man who cobbled together a district shaped like a salamander and gave us the word "gerrymander". At least his salamander was in one piece, with its head attached to its shoulders. The proposed pseudo-Lothian creation is in two separate parts, detached by the Balerno corridor, with my constituents in Musselburgh and Prestonpans mysteriously tacked on to one of the bits. That mystery can, of course, be resolved by taking into account the fact that those parts of my constituency happen to have elected six Labour councillors, who do not fit into the scheme of things as seen by Professor Ross Harper. The remaining part of East Lothian, served by seven Tory councillors and four non-Tory councillors, is to be floated off to Tory-controlled Berwickshire. I wonder why.
What the Secretary of State for Scotland is proposing could be described as a sort of aggravated shotgun marriage. We can cast the Secretary of State in the role of an evil stepfather who could not care less about the welfare of the couple. All he wants them to do is to conceive a Tory council. This will produce some very curious bedfellows.

Dr. Reid: Bed persons.

Mr. Home Robertson: Yes, bed persons. I think of Cockenzie and Coldstream. What else do they have in common? Not much. Political expediency is not a sound basis for the reform of Scottish local government. Nothing like this has ever been done before, and if the House is, for once, to live up to its responsibilities, it must not be allowed to happen now.
Let us have a quick look at the proposed Berwickshire and East Lothian authority. I represented both those counties from 1978 until 1983, so I am very well aware of the fundamental differences in community interests and identity, economic structure and general outlook, between the two sides of the Lammermuir hills. They have always, but always—right back to mediaeval times—had separate local administrations. The new authority proposed by the Secretary of State would be an administrative farce and a geographical joke. The only all-weather link between the two counties is at Dunglass bridge, and the geographical centre of the proposed composite district would be 1,000 ft up the Lammermuirs, on a hill called the Hungry Snout.
Since the political snout of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Hungry Snout seem to be the only common denominator between Berwickshire and East Lothian, I suggest that, henceforth, the Secretary of State's proposed area should be described as "Snoutshire".

"Snoutshire" would be Scotland's smallest mainland authority. The Secretary of State proposes 25 council areas, with an average population of just over 200,000. This one would have just 76,000 people, despite the fact that it is a large, scattered and incompatibly divided area. So, with well under half the average population and a big area, the costs of running a full range of local services, including education, social work, special education and everything else, would be disproportionately high. Thus, there would be either a high council tax or worse services or—most likely—both.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Home Robertson: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. I want to be fair to everybody.
I should love to go into the byways about where the headquarters would be. What about the school whose catchment area will be divided by the proposed boundary? I shall not go into those matters at this stage, except to say that what is proposed would be a complete travesty. It is not surprising that all sorts of people in both counties are amazed and outraged. Yesterday I received from a former chairman of the East Lothian branch of the National Farmers Union for Scotland a letter demanding that East Lothian be kept together. In last week's press we read words of a committed local Conservative. Speaking on behalf of the 60-strong East Lothian business group, he said:
It's crazy. We don't want to see a very good relationship end in this farcical shake-up.
The clear consensus in my constituency is that East Lothian must remain intact, as it always has been. There may or may not be a case for combining our district with a neighbouring district—it is very unlikely that that would turn out to be Berwickshire—but there is no serious or convincing support for the idea of dividing East Lothian in two. The existing district has a population of 86.000—bigger and more logical than the one proposed by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way—please?

Mr. Home Robertson: All right.

Mr. Dalyell: On the question of local services, the Secretary of State, within the hearing of us all, said that when street lights in Stranraer were broken, one had to go to Dumfries. I have telephoned Wigtown district council—the office of Mr. Alastair Geddes—and found that this is absolute nonsense, that these things are done by the client services department, Church street, Stranraer. What we have been given is lies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There may be a misunderstanding or misinformation, but the hon. Gentleman may not accuse another hon. Member of lying. Perhaps he would like to rephrase his comment.

Mr. Dalyell: In the case of Westland, I was turned out of the House five times for having said that Lady Thatcher was a liar. That is now generally accepted—by Sir Leon Brittan and everybody else. I do not want to divert my colleagues by being thrown out again, so I shall refer to this as being economical with the truth.

Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend has illustrated the fact that the Secretary of State knows as little about his own constituency as he does about my part of Scotland or the rest of the country.
I am prepared to accept that there may be a case for single-tier authorities, but I am certain that I speak for virtually all my constituents when I say that I reject the plan to split East Lothian between two freakish, artificial authorities. That sort of carve-up and the Secretary of State's proposals for non-accountable, unelected quangos to run the water industry are a disgrace to the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He should take his proposals away, set up a proper independent review and start all over again.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On Thursday when the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) replied to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State he said:
we are being asked to consider a White Paper for which there is no consensus in Scotland, no support, no demand".
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Gentleman said that clearly, definitely and with all the authority that he was able to muster.
The House will understand my complete astonishment when I found, on the following morning, that the front page of The Press and Journal carried an equally unambiguous and bold heading, "Aberdeen achieves goal". Given that this is the close season, the paper was certainly not talking about football. Two contradictory statements were therefore issued about my right hon. Friend's proposals, one from the hon. Member for Monklands, West and one from The Press and Journal. With all respect to the hon. Member for Monklands West, I would suggest that The Press and Journal is closer than he is to the thinking of the people of Aberdeen. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong, but in his time as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland he has yet to visit Aberdeen.
The hon. Gentleman need not take the word of The Press and Journal for the support expressed for my right hon. Friend's proposals. It has been voiced by all parties and all quarters in Aberdeen. The day after the original proposals were put to the House, the political parties in Aberdeen were vying with each other to try to outdo each other in clamouring to express their support. Not surprisingly, the support started with the Conservative group leader on the district council, Councillor Mike Hastie, who said:
I am delighted we are to become a single-tier authority again.
That was not any good for the Scottish National party, because its group leader, Brian Adam, pitched in and said:
I am in favour of single-tier authorities".
The leader of the Liberal Democrat group, John Reynolds, said:
We are in favour of Aberdeen being made a unitary authority".
The Labour party's group leader and leader of the council in the city of Aberdeen said:
We welcome the return to being a single-tier, all-purpose authority, which we have been working towards since 1974".
Even the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said—I concede that he said it rather grudgingly and through gritted teeth—
There will certainly be great satisfaction at the restoration of a single-tier authority for the city of Aberdeen.
It was therefore breath-taking arrogance and a display of total contempt for the people of Aberdeen for the hon. Member for Monklands, West and his hon. Friends to ignore such statements of wholehearted support from all sides for my right hon. Friend's proposals.

Mr. Robert Hughes: My acceptance of an all-tier authority was not made through gritted teeth. What I did say through gritted teeth and which was widely echoed by people in Aberdeen, including Tom Paine, the leader of the Labour group, was that I regretted the way in which Westhill had been tacked on to the city of Aberdeen. More important than that, however, it is clear that the Secretary of State's intention is to provide a smokescreen with the boundaries; his real intention is to strip local councils of real control and the real delivery of services.

Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, I shall discuss Westhill later.
It was breath-taking arrogance on the part of the hon. Member for Monklands, West and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench to ignore all shades of political opinion in Aberdeen. Such was the arrogance of the hon. Gentleman when he said that there was
no consensus … no support, no demand"—[Official Report, 8 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 472.]
for the proposals of my right hon. Friend. If the hon. Gentleman can dismiss in a cavalier manner the views of elected councillors of all parties in Aberdeen and those of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, over how many other councillors', hon. Members' and people's opinions has he ridden roughshod in his frantic attempt to fabricate a case to help him deny the popularity of my right hon. Friend's proposals?
If the hon. Member for Monklands, West were still in the Chamber I would ask him to come to the Dispatch Box to apologise to his Labour local government colleagues in Aberdeen and to the wider community in Aberdeen, political and non-political, for misrepresenting them and ignoring their long-held views in order to score a cheap political point. I am sorry that he is not in his place, but perhaps the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), when he replies to the debate, will apologise not only to the Labour party of Aberdeen, but to the wider Aberdonian community.

Mr. John McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: I will not give way. Sit down.

Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) is not giving way.

Mr. Robertson: As the debate develops in the coming months, the hon. Member for Monklands, West will be forced to eat his words of last Thursday in respect not just of Aberdeen but of communities throughout Scotland.
Much has been said about the decision to include Westhill in the new Aberdeen city council, to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has already referred.

Mr. Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that an awful lot of Labour supporters may want local government to be reorganised, but only when we have in place a Scottish Parliament? Then the debate would be meaningful and services would not be delivered by quangos, which would be running the cities, in accordance with the Tory plan.

Mr. Robertson: When the Scottish people watch this debate and the arrayed masses opposite, is it any wonder that they consistently vote against a Scottish Assembly?
We have been told that the decision to include Westhill in the new Aberdeen city council is all part of some great Tory plot to increase Conservative representation. If only, if only. Those who talk about Westhill seem to forget that it has no elected Conservative councillors at either district or regional level. In the 1988 and 1992 district elections no Conservative candidates even stood for election. That seems to be a rather perverse form of gerrymandering.
Far from a political manoeuvre, my right hon. Friend has responded to the case made by the Labour-controlled City of Aberdeen district council, whose submission to the original consultation document was approved by the full council, after being rammed through by the ruling majority Labour group. On page 53, that submission says:
A boundary could be drawn quite tight to the west of Elrick, which is part of Westhill, to avoid including Kirkton of Skene, thereafter utilising minor roads and farm access tracks to reconnect with the existing city boundary at the Leuchar Burn in the vicinity of Mid Anguston. This proposal would enable the lands at Cairnie, owned by the City Council, to be incorported within the City's administrative area.
Paragraph 7.20 of the submission states:
It may be the case that inhabitants of those areas may not choose to regard themselves as part of the 'community' of Aberdeen, and that individual reasons for taking that view are of greater or lesser validity, but if the economic life of such places as Westhill is inextricably bound up with that of the City, and significant levels of use of the City's cultural and recreational facilities are enjoyed by residents of those places, there may well be a sound case for extending the City's boundaries.
I am sure that Labour councillors on Aberdeen district council will be glad to hear that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland has said that they are narrow-minded.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Westhill is in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should take on board the fact that the people of Westhill have not expressed any wish to be included in the city of Aberdeen—quite the reverse. Gordon district has invested heavily in community facilities in Westhill, which the city of Aberdeen may not have done.

Mr. Robertson: The contention that I outlined in the submission from Aberdeen district council suggests that if my right hon. Friend is to be accused of gerrymandering it is Conservative Members who should be complaining.

Mr. Bruce: Answer the question.

Mr. Robertson: I am about to do so. The people of Westhill look to the city and their focus is the city, as I am sure the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) would agree.
The most recent figures produced by Grampian regional council show that, of a resident and economically active population of 3,200, some 2,200 work in Aberdeen. The inclusion of Westhill in the city boundaries is a welcome and long overdue move. It is vital to recognise the

role that Westhill and its population play in the life of the city. It is also vital to recognise the corresponding demand placed on city services for which, until now, there has been no recompense.
The including of Westhill also addresses, just as importantly, what Opposition Members would call the democratic deficit, because the people of Westhill have had no say in the affairs of a city that plays such a major and strategic role in their day-to-day lives.
If the hon. Member for Monklands, West had bothered to address such issues as communities and the provision of services rather than playing to the gallery behind him last Thursday, he might have come to some different conclusions. In so doing, he would have spared himself the embarrassment of what followed.
Last Thursday, the House witnessed what the people of Scotland have had to witness for too long: the Secretary of State taking Scotland forward, updating her institutions and preparing her to meet head on the challenges and opportunities of the new century.

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We must all be responsible for what we say in the House, but is it in order for an hon. Member deliberately to misquote from a document and not give way to someone who knows something about the matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. Hon. Members are entirely responsible for their speeches and how they quote from documents.

Mr. Robertson: Last Thursday, Labour Members responded, as they are doing now, with gesture politics, showing their inability to grasp the issues of the day or contribute to the debate in a meaningful way. The Scottish people were not persuaded by last Thursday's antics. Unfortunately for the hon. Member for Monklands, West, they laughed at his false rage and were left unmoved by his self-righteous indignation. They saw through the whole thing, as he and his colleagues will soon learn. They resented being used by the hon. Gentleman as a backdrop to allow him to start his re-election campaign to the shadow Cabinet. They resent being used by him in a frantic and grubby attempt to shore up the support of the Scotland United group of Members of Parliament and to win over a few of his, until now, unimpressed colleagues.
Last week had nothing to do with the hon. Member for Monklands, West trying to speak for Scotland or even for the Labour vote, but everything to do with sending a message to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) that he was, even after a year, still one of the boys.
Last week had nothing to do with plans to wipe Strathclyde, Lothian, Tayside or Monklands from Scotland's political map, but everything to do with trying to wipe the smirk from the face of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). That smirk appears on the hon. Gentleman's face every time his boss speaks at the Dispatch Box. The Labour party went too far. It treated the people of Scotland with consummate contempt as pawns in its sordid little struggle as it jockeys for positions of power.
Last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke for Scotland, which is why the reforms are popular, will work and will last.

Mr. James Wallace: The voters of Westhill will have noted the patronising terms in which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) has referred to them. He implied that they should know better and should want to be part of Aberdeen. His argument could be applied to Eastwood's relationship to Glasgow, or even to Portlethen's Stonehaven's or Banchory's relationship with Aberdeen. I doubt whether his logic will go down well in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).
We also heard the Secretary of State say that, if someone wants a light bulb changed in Stranraer, he must go to Dumfries. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, that is palpably untrue. Under the Secretary of State's proposals, that might happen, because my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) showed that, where existing regions are to remain, it will be up to the regions whether to devolve responsibility. Clearly, the House was seriously misled simply for the sake of cheap jibes and good one-liners, which did not befit the office of Secretary of State.
Given the blatant partisan nature of the proposals, I am not surprised that there has been so much furore about the boundaries. Everyone wants to know what criteria the Government applied when drawing up those boundaries. What is so special about Eastwood or East Renfrewshire that, with a population of 88,000, they can be single-tier authorities, whereas Inverclyde next door, with a district population of 93,500, cannot?
What is so special about Highland, and Dumfries and Galloway, which are both bigger in size and population than Borders, that they should remain intact, while Borders must be butchered to create a council in Berwick and East Lothian to suit the Conservative party's wishes? People might legitimately want a straight answer to those questions, but may not think that they will ever get one.
More important, what is local government all about? We play into the Government's hands if we spend all our time in the next 18 months debating the Balerno corridor or the Eastwood enclave. In his introduction to last autumn's consultation paper, the Secretary of State said:
The exercise is, after all, not only about redrawing maps. It is ultimately about organising local government to enable it to fulfil its potential as a legitimate and powerful part of our democracy.
I quote those words because the point is succinctly made, not because I attach significance to the fact that it was made by the Secretary of State. It is the kind of phrase that one expects Secretaries of State to put in such a document. One can envisage the Secretary of State writing it, the pen oozing with sincerity, but one knows full well that, when Tory Ministers talk about power and local democracy, they are as genuinely concerned about them as the big bad wolf was when he expressed concern about Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother. They have no concept of what local democracy is about, because 14 years of Conservative government have seen more than 150 measures designed to take powers from local democracy.
When the Secretary of State says that he wants to liberate local democracy, he should own up to the fact that the Government have emasculated local democracy and that the measure is a smokescreen to continue that course.
Even when we find in the document a germ of hope that might mean more power being given to local government,

we must wait and see what happens. We are told that there will be statutory confirmation of a local authority's right to become involved in industrial development activities, yet the same paragraph tells us that the Secretary of State will reserve to himself power
to make regulations imposing conditions or restriction on the way in which local authorities carry out this function." Even when the Secretary of State is giving with one hand, he is taking away with the other.
If this had been a genuine exercise in promoting local democracy, a general competence power would have been given to local authorities, and the Government would have ensured that councils were elected by a fair voting system.
I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State accept that the present system was rubbish, and that it took twice as many Conservative votes to elect a Conservative councillor as it did to elect a Labour councillor. Proportional representation is the fair way to deal with that, not gerrymandering councils. We want a system in which the electorate will judge local authorities' performance, and financial responsibility is enforced through the ballot box, not through ministerial fiat. We want not so much the glossy pages of the citizens charter as a statute setting down minimum standards that are enforceable by the citizen in law courts.
The Government stand most condemned when we consider their case for reform and see what they are saying compared to what they are doing. Today the Secretary of State quoted opinion polls, saying that there was an overwhelming popular demand for unitary authorities.
Let us be fair: having regard to popular opinion in Scotland is a novel approach for the Government. We are not told why public opinion on this issue must be heeded and why popular opinion expressed at the ballot box about the need for a Scottish Parliament is ignored. I suspect that many of the people who responded to the first consultation document in 1991, saying that they wanted a single-tier authority, understood that it would be a single-tier authority with a Scottish Parliament. That is the proper context in which to consider single-tier authorities.
The 1991 consultation document said that the people rejected the present system because
The risk of confusion, which was always inherent in a two tier structure, is therefore increasingly emerging as a serious weakness.
It also spoke of the need to end the "clouding of accountability" and
the potential for duplication, waste, delay and friction.
But surely the largest contribution to the clouding of accountability has come from the Government's interference in local government. How can a local authority be held to account when so many of the criticisms can be met with the response that inefficiency, nonsense or unpopularity has been imposed by central Government?
I doubt whether the friction between region and district has ever been as great as the friction that Tory Governments have generated between central Government and local government. Which local authority—islands, district or region—has managed to compare with central Government in producing the level of wasteful expenditure associated with the poll tax?
The Secretary of State has found an easy way to ensure that there will be no more clouding of accountability in the case of water: he will end accountability. Yet another quango will spring into life, which will make it easier to transfer the water industry into the private sector when the Treasury demands that that should be done.
The Secretary of State's lack of an answer to a question posed by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) was illuminating. Will there be another consultation paper to tell us what the three areas are, how the boards will be constituted, what the financial arrangements will be, and whether debts will be written off? In relation to water and sewerage services, the White Paper leaves more questions unanswered than even the original consultation document.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Quayle-Munro will prepare the report.

Mr. Wallace: Quayle-Munro will no doubt be paid a substantial amount to provide another report, which is meaningless.
When the Government were preparing their consultation document, they told us that, although regional councils all decentralise decision-making to some extent, inevitably it is difficult for individuals to find their way around those unavoidably large organisations.
In an open letter to the Secretary of State, Councillor Ross Finnie, the leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Inverclyde district council, has underlined how difficult it has been for Inverclyde residents in the Paisley-based Renfrew sub-region of Strathclyde. However, ignoring local opinion in Inverclyde and community links, the Secretary of State proposes that Inverclyde should form part of the existing unitary sub-region of Strathclyde. Therefore, Inverclyde will experience the problems which he has identified, and which he said in the White Paper would be eliminated.
Citizens in Caithness and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will be reassured that, since the publication of the consultation paper last year, when the difficulties were highlighted, Ministers have been persuaded that decentralised decision-making in a large region, if it happens, will no longer pose any problems for the individuals involved.
I am sure that people in Skye, Caithness and Stranraer will conveniently forget, as Ministers will want them to, that the document also stated:
The individual may consider that the presence of a local office or existence of an area committee will not always be an effective substitute for being able to attend a full council or council committee meeting. In general, therefore, the links with the community seem likely to be closer, and the accountability of elected members more obvious and direct, in an authority which is relatively small.
The one silver lining in the matter is that we might save the north of Scotland railway lines, because councillors and members of the public will have to travel the hundred miles by train to attend the local council meetings.
I shall continue to illustrate the mismatch between promises and outcome. The Secretary of State has done whatever he wants to be done, particularly if it helps to promote the Conservative cause. We have heard the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel).
An analysis of the responses to the consultation document showed that, of 108 responses from south-east Scotland, 105 wanted the continuation of the Borders region or two units which would maintain the present integrity of the Borders region. Three were against: the Conservative group of Lothian region, the Conservative group of Berwickshire district council and one Conservative councillor.
The prospectus published last year stated:

We will consider carefully all the comments we receive before making decisions about the shape, size and number of the new authorities.
The prospectus failed to mention the existence of the golden share, which is usually in the hands of the chairman of the local Conservative association.

Mr. Ian Davidson: We are debating an extremely important issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government are making no attempt to justify the boundaries that they are proposing, safe in the knowledge that they have a parliamentary majority behind them? Does he agree that the Government intend to drive through these politically partisan proposals, which have no support in Scotland, except among their own ranks? Does he agree that that process will threaten the Union in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)?

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the spot. The Government's proposals go beyond the conventions of an unwritten constitution. I would rather have a written constitution, but we have an unwritten constitution which is bound by conventions. Those conventions have been broken.
It may be argued that constitutional changes have taken place in the past—the Chamber has been the scene of many battles—but history will show that those battles were usually fought over the progress of people's democracy, not shabby little pieces of political manipulation such as those with which the House has been presented today.
Perhaps hope for us all lies in the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who told the Select Committee on Defence earlier this week that, in two or three years, there might well be a different Government. It would be the ultimate irony if those who seek to defeat democracy are, in turn, defeated by democracy.

Mr. George Kynoch: I shall try not to detain the House longer than necessary, as I am aware that many Opposition Members want to speak.
The motion refers to "unnecessary changes", and talks of the lack of general support for the introduction of single-tier authorities. In my district of Scotland, there is a strong wish to have single-tier local authorities, and for a good reason. People want a single-tier local authority which is as near the people as possible and provides services at the best possible cost.
That is not to say that local authorities which have run services to date have not been doing a good job, but circumstances have changed and it is time to evolve. For too long, constituents have been at sea as to whether functions are carried out by regional or district councils. When they encounter a problem, it is passed from councillor to councillor or from department to department—it is not known who is responsible for the service involved.
In the short time that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have realised that, when I hold surgeries and constituents visit me, many of the problems they bring should be addressed to their local councillors. The reason my constituents come to me is because they do not know to whom they should turn, and they cannot be bothered to waste time as the buck is passed from person to person.


They would rather achieve some action by going straight to the right place initially. Surely that is not what local government is about. Local councils should be accountable, local and flexible, and they should have clear responsibilities.
I represent a largely rural constituency. The problems and requirements of rural constituencies and districts are different from those which obtain in cities. One obvious sector of concern in my rural district is primary school education. In cities, it is possible to rationalise schools and ensure that funds are used in the best way in a new primary school which provides education for as many children as possible. Children may have to travel a distance which seems relatively far in city terms, but which is, in rural terms, a small distance. In rural constituencies, the primary school is often the hub of a local community—educating smaller numbers of children and providing the necessary education to the children of that district. If there is rationalisation, those children will have to travel greater distances.
Constituents in rural districts sometimes wonder whether a regional education authority which includes a city places too much emphasis on the easy option of providing primary schools in cities. It is all too easy to neglect primary schools in rural areas. I have seen that happen in my constituency, where numerous smaller schools suffer from lack of attention, because too much attention is paid to city education.
It would be useful to move towards city single-tier local authorities that are separate from rural districts, so that the problems of the rural outlying districts could be addressed by council members who understand the rural problems and do not have to battle with problems related to the city.

Mr. John Maxton: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that city suburbs should be included in cities, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) argued? If he does believe in that principle, why should it not be extended to Glasgow as well as Aberdeen?

Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not want to argue about Glasgow. I would rather discuss the district of Scotland that I know much better—my constituency.
There is always a grey area about whether a suburb is part of the city or rural, but a line must be drawn. I appreciate the difficulties that my right hon. Friend must have encountered in drawing some of those lines.
Single-tier authorities will be welcomed by people in cities and in rural areas in which size is important. Rural authorities should be small enough to be local and large enough to be economically viable. We could debate for many hours what is viable and what is not, but, whatever the size of the unit, it must deliver services locally, effectively, efficiently and competitively.
As with any business, the larger the unit, the easier it is to spread overheads and reduce overall cost. That seems to be a better way than subcontracting to provide services, but the obvious risk in doing it that way is that the local touch and the flexibility to provide services with local needs at heart may be lost.
The proposed Aberdeenshire will have an area of about 2,300 square miles and a population of almost 200,000 spread over a diverse geographical area. The White Paper refers to decentralised management and administration about which my right hon. Friend spoke. How will that ensure that decisions are taken at the most local level?
My right hon. Friend spoke commendably about people not having to make long journeys to visit council headquarters. I welcome that, because it embraces the idea of bringing local government to the people. How could that objective be achieved in single-tier local authorities in large rural areas without going halfway to a two-tier system?
When the detail of the Bill is debated, I shall listen carefully to the Secretary of State's explanations. The larger areas must not become dinosaurian, to use the term employed earlier in the week by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), so that the head does not know what the tail is doing. It is a long way from north to south in the proposed Aberdeenshire.
As the Secretary of State knows, I am concerned about the splitting of a local government area that has not been split for at least 170 years. In the 1970s, there was a strong fight in Kincardineshire to keep the area intact so that the Mearns was not separated from Kincardineshire. During the consultation period, nobody from that area who spoke to me favoured being separated from the north and attached to the south.
One of my constituents who lives in Stonehaven wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. She sent me a covering letter and a copy of the letter sent to my right hon. Friend. The covering letter states:
I am afraid my letter may have been dictated more by my heart than my head. I am, however, Kincardine born, bred and educated. My birthplace was Laurencekirk and my maternal roots are in what is termed the Mearns. I cannot let that area come under the jurisdiction of another authority, where there would be no real interest in caring for what I naturally feel is my heritage.
Since the beginning of local government last century, the county of Kincardine has been responsible for the area stretching from the Dee to the North Esk and over the Slug up Deeside to Kincardine O'Neil. As I have said to Mr. Lang, Kincardine is a family area. It must not be split.
In determining the proposed local authorities my right hon. Friend wants to keep together people who are naturally together. It is fortunate that the White Paper has been presented before the summer recess, because during that time we can ascertain what the people of that area really want. I shall return to the split in Committee.
While I warmly welcome the main thrust of single-tier local authorities, I neither applaud nor condemn the detailed proposal for my area. I seek from my right hon. Friend the reassurances that I have outlined, and I have flagged some areas of concern.
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals on water. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said that water was a gift of God. He failed to tell us that to get it from God to the human body entails a good deal of capital expenditure on equipment for treating it. When the human body has finished with it and before it passes to the sea, it has to undergo further treatment.
It has been said that capital of about £5 billion will be required over the next 10 to 15 years for Scottish water. My right hon. Friend's proposal will not affect other services, and he has recognised the strong opinion from, I am sure, all constituencies that the people of Scotland do not at this time welcome the prospect of full-blown


privatisation. However, those who face facts and appreciate the need to raise funds recognise that private capital must be raised if other services such as health, education and roads are not to suffer.
The proposal for three public boards is sensible. The Government have grasped the local government nettle, and I look forward to the autumn, when we can debate the fine details of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Connarty: The White Paper and the Secretary of State's speech were sad efforts—an exercise in brute force and ignorance, with the stress on ignorance. That was made obvious by an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The Secretary of State's theme was taken up by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who has now left the Chamber. [Interruption.] He has moved from where he was sitting. The debate was not improved by the speech by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).
I have no fear of the Government succeeding in whatever they set out to do in Scotland. The aim of their hidden agenda is to make the Scottish people lose faith in local democracy. The Government tried to do that through manipulation in England and Wales and they are about to try it in Scotland. Local government elections in Scotland have always had a much higher turnout than those in any other part of the United Kingdom. That is because people take an interest and have faith in local democracy and in the publicly spirited people who seek to represent them.
Who will stop the Government carrying out their purpose? It will be the people of Scotland who will continue to vote in elections because their service aspirations have not been dimmed by past happenings. The Government will also be stopped by local authorities staff in Scotland whose high standards of professionalism and dedication in delivering services have been untouched by Government manipulation and attacks. That will continue to be the case regardless of the attempts to stymie their aspirations by any Government, even Labour Governments in the past, for which we should be rightly ashamed. The individuals who are public spirited enough to stand for local government seek to represent their communities in a public spirited way and that will continue regardless of the Government's manipulations.
I have every confidence that the non-Conservative council will fight on to optimise the services, but not necessarily to maximise them and try to make them as responsive as possible, as it has in the past.
Some of the things that the Secretary of State said are not just a shame and a distortion of democracy, but undermine the very fabric of the Scottish people. They are a genuine threat to the Union, if the Secretary of State thinks that he is defending it.
Local government is not and should never be a matter of geography or based on historic settlements. Some people jump up and down about such issues, but we should not look at them in that way. We need to consider communities as they can generate energy, create self-help initiatives and aspirations and reach out in an articulate way for the services that local authorities should provide.
Whatever local government structure applies under the future Scottish Parliament, and it is consistent that there

should be a Scottish Parliament before we have single-tier or any other new authority, it must be judged against objective criteria.
The Labour party is accused of not looking at the future, but I chaired the local government committee of the Labour party in Scotland and we tried to look for those criteria. We did not look at geography but at criteria that would produce a positive result. It is quite clear that we studied the issues more deeply and intelligently than the civil servants have as we produced certain criteria for a Scottish Parliament and beyond.
The criteria are, first, that the local authorities can be properly resourced and achieve the necessary benefits of scale—not necessarily the largest scale but the optimum one. Secondly, they should be able to guarantee a standard and level of service capable of creating an acceptable quality of life and improving the quality of life for those within the council area. Thirdly, local authorities should be accountable and, more importantly, responsive to the needs of local communities and individuals within the council area. The fourth criterion—on which the Government trip up most often—is that those priorities should be applied consistently throughout Scotland. That has not been done in the Government's exercise.
The proposals resulting from the Government's supposed consultation do not reflect any of those criteria. The Government simply fail to do the right thing. The Secretary of State's rubbishing of an objective commission shows how unbelievably patronising to the Scottish people and how parochial and influenced by his party's interests rather than those of the Scottish people he has become. That is a sad fall for someone who I was told was an intelligent person with Scotland's future at heart.
None of the proposals is based on consultation. They are totally inconsistent with the responses to the consultation exercise. Consultation is devalued by asking people what they want and then ignoring what they say.
I want to focus on the bizarre manipulations and the contortions which resulted in what the Government hoped would be Tory enclaves. The image I had was Dickensian. I had Mr. Bumble the beadle, the hon. Member for Eastwood, and Mr. Scrooge, the hon. Member for Stirling, getting together to draw up something more like Dickensian local government than anything that could take us into the future.
As a former leader of Stirling district council for 10 years, I make no apology for focusing on the potential damage that the proposals could do to the quality of life and the services available to people in that district and to future generations there. Stirling district had high-quality services, so we had to have a high tax level to provide district council services, but I suspect that the other mini-councils have the same problem: they do not have the economic base to give them an adequate income to provide the services that are provided at the moment by Central regional council.
I shall not be tempted to draw boundary or geographical conclusions, but after 13 years in local government in Central region and three years outside, I can say that Central regional council delivers a higher level of service in education, social work, roads and economic development, not just absolutely but in terms of pound-for-pound spending and value for money than any predecessor authority and any alternative that has been suggested to date.
The spectre of the Tory future which haunts the proposals for new Torylands, as I shall call them, has a particular form. In education, I suggest that there will be either higher local taxes—it is quite clear that the Conservative philosophy will not allow that—or massive service reductions with poorer staff training in education and fewer support staff. If a child in Stirling, Dunblane or Balfron needs educational psychology, he is less likely to get it under the proposed boundaries. Speech therapy and other support services for education such as libraries cannot be provided by small councils such as Stirling without raising the tax base, and that is not likely to be on the cards.
The new Stirling philosophy is likely to offer an alternative. I am told that Stirling district council put a 53-page submission to the Secretary of State. We have seen some of the things that are already happening in Stirling. There will be proposals on opt out. Schools in Dunblane, Balfron, St. Modans and Stirling will be told that, if they opt out of the local authority, they will get a one-off bribe, as they did in England and Wales. They cannot come back to local authorities once they have opted out, so if services start to break down they will be on their own.
The Tory alternative is already known. Community care policies in Stirling and Forth valley have been signalled by the unholy alliance between the ex-Tory councillor, Mrs. Iris Isbister, who chairs Forth Valley health board, and the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). She thinks that the private sector can provide all the community care necessary for the elderly in my constituency and the others within the Forth valley. They will push those most in need out of the local authorities and force them into the profit-motivated private sector where services will be lower and shoddier and in many cases the cheap, shoddy private sector will be the only option.
I left Stirling in 1990 and moved to my new constituency. Recently, I went back to attend a function in that area and visited some friends in the estate where I used to live. The grass was a foot high. Stirling used to be a shining example of a tourist town. It now has a shoddy, shambolic council. It was so bad that the Conservative councillors were calling for special meetings to force the contractors to cut the grass to the standard that the people expected. There have been cuts in services; recently the solicitor service went out to the private sector with the sacking of solicitors who had given the council loyal service. That spectre haunts people in the Torylands.
I am tempted to encourage the Government in this way as that would be the end of the Conservatives in Scotland. In Stirling they will get rid of the hon. Member for Stirling and they will get rid of the council. The present Conservative Member for Stirling will have a weaker base when people realise that they not only have to put up with him down here but with his philosophies in local services.
I am proud of the fact that, in a constructed constituency, where they took out three mining villages that were recommended by the commission and put in Dunblane and Bridge of Allan, and where there should have been a massive Tory majority, the hon. Gentleman's majority went down to 548 when I challenged him in 1987 and he is hanging on by 700 at the moment. This proposal makes sure that another party will take that seat.
I do not want to be so partisan. I want to recommend to the Government that they do the honest thing, not because I do not want rid of them in Scotland, but because I want the Scottish people to have decent local government. I ask them to turn back, change their minds and bring in a structure that is responsive to people's needs and not about trying to save one or two silly Tory councils.

Mr. Phil Gallie: The Opposition motion would be a joke if it were not in the names of members of the Labour Front Bench. It makes charges of "inadequate consultation", but the fact that 3,500 people were consulted disproves that accusation. The motion criticises also the shortness of time allowed, but there were four months of consultation and five months of consideration—and no doubt there will be 12 months of further debate in this Chamber and in Committee. How much time is needed?

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gallie: It is typical of Labour Members to seek more time, because it is easier to talk. They are not used to making decisions. After 14 years, they do not need to worry about making decisions.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's voice was very clear. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) heard the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) earlier and that he does not intend to give way.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) said that he would approve single-tier government after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. Labour has talked about establishing a Scottish Parliament ever since it was last in government in the 1970s. It failed to provide one then and it will still be talking about one well into the next century. A Scottish Parliament is not on the agenda, but single-tier government is—and I approve of that.
I have consistently welcomed single-tier government and that approach was reflected in my comments during the run-up to the last general election. I stated that my aim was the abolition of Strathclyde regional council. At a meeting of Ayrshire chamber of commerce, my political opponents stressed that that was their aim, too. Scottish National, Liberal and Labour opponents wanted to get rid of Strathclyde regional council.

Dr. Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that he is a fair-minded man. He mentioned his opposition to Strathclyde regional council. I will not ask him the hard question, which is what it did wrong. As the Secretary of State made disparaging remarks earlier about Strathclyde regional council, I will ask the hon. Gentleman the easy question. Will he name any Secretary of State for Scotland since 1945, Labour or Tory, who had the broad support, democratic legitimacy and backing of more people than any leader of Strathclyde council—from Dick Stewart and Charlie Gray to Bob Goud today? Even though the hon. Gentleman may not


agree with them, they had and have more democratic backing than any Secretary of State of any party. Will the hon. Gentleman answer without the advice of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who is briefing him?

Mr. Gallie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind initial comment. I accept that there has been strong backing for the conveners of Strathclyde regional council, but the boundaries do not reflect in any way local wishes or aspirations of people outside central Glasgow. That is the opinion also of many constituents to whom I have spoken recently.

Mr. Foulkes: I am one of the hon Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Did my hon. Friend vote for him?

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend's question requires no reply.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) spoke of the legitimacy and popularity of Strathclyde regional council. Earlier, he implied that the Government had paid no attention to the results of consultations. Will he confirm that the vast majority of people consulted in Ayrshire—including the chamber of commerce and Enterprise Ayrshire—were in favour of an all-Ayrshire authority? Few people, and only Tories, were in favour of Kyle and Carrick and no one supported an authority comprising Cumnock and Doon Valley, Cunninghame, and Kilmarnock and Loudoun. That is an invention of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gallie: I will respond to that point later.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Opposition Members should show a little patience. I will respond.
My right hon.Friend the Secretary of State listened to the wishes of the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) in trying to bring their areas together. He listened also to voices in my constituency and to me and I applaud that. It is democracy in action.
Nevertheless, we should seek to establish local authorities that recognise local needs and aspirations, whose elected councillors can be seen to be accountable to the electorate and whose administration will be judged on the performance of those councils. We do not want local authorities established on the basis of a state-given right to operate according to ideology and habit. In the central belt of Scotland, that is precisely the situation now.
We heard much from Opposition Members today about democracy and involvement. In the majority of cases across central Scotland, councillors are selected not by the choice of voters but by small cabals within the Labour party—by constituency organisations with, no doubt, considerable trade union input. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is well aware of that.
It is not just council candidates who are selected by such cabals, because they select also committee conveners—

Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Gentleman suggests that local authority candidates

are selected by cabals. Perhaps he will explain how the proposals will change that. Also, what kind of cabal selected the hon. Gentleman as a parliamentary candidate?

Mr. Gallie: The party organisation in constituencies such as that which I serve presents a candidate to the electorate, but ultimately the electorate do not vote according to ideology and habit but on the case that is presented to them. They are offered alternatives. My right hon. Friend's proposals address that important option.
Labour wants to protect party interests. It is not interested in democracy but in the power of the party—a truly socialist tradition. The local government debate has for a long time concentrated on that aspect and it is time for change. That change is reflected by my right hon. Friend's proposals, which recognise that local interests must at all times be to the fore.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley referred to the representations made by Ayrshire. I remind him of his own previous comments—particularly those about Enterprise Ayrshire, which he accused of concentrating mainly on Irvine and Kilmarnock interests. If we opted for an all-Ayrshire authority, it would be dominated by Irvine, Kilmarnock and—probably—Cumnock influences. That would not be good for my constituents in Kyle and Carrick.
Most of those consulted about the proposals have stressed the need to consider the local aspects. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken that on board in Ayrshire's case. Let me, however, raise three specific points with him. First. I received a letter today from a group purporting to represent the interests of children's education in Glasgow. That group fears that nursery education will cease to exist following the demise of Strathclyde regional council. In Kyle and Carrick, one nursery school must serve 80 per cent. of my constituents. If that represents good service from Strathclyde region, I look forward to the day when we in Kyle and Carrick can take on our own responsibilities.
I have some sympathy for my former colleagues in Cunninghame, North. The north coast of Cunninghame was always alienated from Strathclyde and, to some extent, from Irvine. I know that my right hon. Friend intends to meet local councillors in the not-too-distant future; I hope that he will accommodate them, but I fear that, if he does, Opposition Members will simply accuse him of gerrymandering.

Mr. Brian Wilson: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Is he seriously suggesting that, when the Secretary of State meets Tories from the north of my constituency, he will reach an accommodation that will satisfy their specific wishes without taking account of the wider concerns of all north Ayrshire—and, indeed, of all those who are to be lumped in with the crazy authority of that name, which will stretch all the way to Auchinleck and other areas? Will the hon. Gentleman adopt a less parochial outlook and recommend an all-Ayrshire solution, based either on a single council or the existing districts? He cannot make sensible pleas for Tories in the north of my constituency without presenting a more general format. In saying that, I speak for people across the political board in my constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Such long interventions prevent other Opposition Members from speaking.

Mr. Gallie: I speak for my constituents and their right to a voice in local government. They need to be able to influence their councillors and to take account of their actions. It is up to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) to decide how best to represent the interests of his constituents. I understand that he has argued for an all-Ayrshire authority in the past, but perhaps I am wrong: perhaps he has argued for the retention of Strathclyde region. I leave him to look after his own interests, but I am aware of anxieties in a part of his constituency with which I have a great affiliation.
My third point involves community councils. [Interruption.] I have given way on a number of occasions, allowing my own time to be used by others in lengthy interventions. Hon. Members will just have to listen to the rest of my speech.
The Government are considering extending the involvement of community councils in planning and licensing. That is a great step forward for local democracy. Members of community councils do a grand job in looking after local interests and their voices should be heard. The need for funds for such councils should also be considered.
I believe that the Secretary of State's proposal for three public authorities to deal with water is well worth implementing. It will fulfil all our requirements, providing high quality, constant volume and lower costs in the long term. In recent years, Strathclyde region has ignored Ayrshire's sewerage needs time and again; I trust that, following the establishment of the new public authorities, those needs will be given appropriate priority and Ayrshire will have a proper sewerage system.
Many of my constituents have complained about the link between water charges and the new council tax banding valuations. I hope that, with the new structure, different charging arrangements will be introduced.

Mrs. Irene Adams: I promised my hon. Friends to speak for no longer than five mintues. The fact that I have had to listen to 20 minutes of drivel from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) reflects the current imbalance in the House: 11 Conservative Members can take up all the time, while 62 Opposition Members must scramble for the few minutes that remain.
The Government's proposals do not surprise me. After all, at the last election they asked the Scottish people to vote for them if they supported the status quo. Only 25 per cent. of Scottish voters did so; 75 per cent. said, "No—we do not support the status quo."
The Government chose to ignore that 75 per cent., just as they ignore everything else that matters. They do so at their peril: they are now endangering democracy in Scotland. Their manifesto contained no proposals for water privatisation, but it was the first thing they mentioned when they returned to power. The Scottish people will not be fooled by the way in which privatisation is being introduced through the back door.
I defend Strathclyde regional council. It irked the Government because it got it right. The Government should ask people in the former Tory counties—in the old Renfrewshire and Argyllshire areas—about the condition of their roads before Strathclyde region was invented. They should go up to the islands, and ask people in Colonsay what social service provision was like when Argyll controlled the council. Strathclyde has been

efficient and successful; it has given services to areas that never had them before. The Government have opposed the council because it was democratically elected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) asked about the power of the Secretary of State. A Tory Secretary of State for Scotland was last elected with a majority in 1955. Strathclyde convenors have all been elected with vast majorities, as have those of Renfrew district council.
Apparently, Renfrew district council is not big enough to be the sole authority, although the area contains 206,000 people. Down the road, Greenock—in the Inverclyde district—contains 93,000, but apparently it is not big enough either. A new council representing 88,000 people is now being proposed for Eastwood: apparently Eastwood is big enough. The other council represents a population of 256,000, including—funnily enough—four elected Labour Members of Parliament. The proposed Eastwood council has one Tory Member of Parliament. What has the Secretary of State for Scotland done to justify that? He has taken poor old Barrhead, which has never voted for the Tories, and lumped it into Tory Eastwood.
The Secretary of State has also taken the only Tory ward—Ralston—from my constituency and put it into Eastwood. He will have a job on his hands when he tries to justify to the people of Ralston why their children will no longer be able to go to Paisley grammar school.
When the grammar school issue last raised its ugly head the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), was there, right out in front, telling people that he had the right to speak because children from his constituency went to Paisley grammar school. But it will be in a different council authority. Paisley grammar school will have to take children from Greenock, Wemyss Bay, Gourock and Erskine before it is allowed to take children from Ralston.
If that is not the case, can the Under-Secretary tell us what new financial arrangements will be made to allow council boundaries to be crossed so that children from Ralston can go to Paisley grammar school? The people of Paisley, Greenock and the surrounding areas pay for these services. Is the Under-Secretary telling us that they will have to pay for children from Eastwood to go to the grammar school, while children from Ralston, who live not half a mile away from Paisley grammar school, have to go to school in Barrhead? There is no direct bus link from Barrhead to Ralston.
According to the Secretary of State's proposals, the people of Ralston will have to look to Eastwood for all their services. If a street light is broken, they will have to go six miles to Eastwood and ask the council to fix it. But there is no direct bus service from Ralston to Eastwood.
There is no geographical or historic reasons for setting up the Renfrewshire councils. Half the areas that have been taken in were part of the old Renfrewshire county council, but so was Renfrew. Renfrew, though, votes Labour, so it is not going into the new Eastwood council. It is staying with the other council. The only reason for all this is political gerrymandering—setting up a Tory safe haven in Eastwood to protect the hon. Member for Eastwood.

Mr. Brian Donohoe: I am absolutely opposed to the Secretary of State for Scotland's proposal to reform Scottish local government, as outlined in "Shaping the Future—The New Councils." This is the latest episode in a systematic and concerted attack on the powers of Scottish local government which began when the Tories first came to power in 1979.
It must have been a surprise to anyone reading the document to find that the Secretary of State had committed himself to setting up effective and efficient local authorities. For any council to be effective and efficient, it requires, first, powers to initiate change that have not been emasculated by central Government. Secondly, it requires money so that it can provide efficient services to the public whom it is meant to serve. After 14 years of Tory Government, Scottish local authorities are neither effective nor efficient.
Despite the Secretary of State's assurances in the White Paper, Scottish councils will see their powers further eroded by any reform of local government that is initiated by a Tory document and presided over by a Tory Secretary of State with a hidden agenda which still, even after all his announcements, includes water privatisation and the extension of compulsory competitive tendering. The Tories' hidden agenda is still very much in being. Nothing that was said last week takes away from the fact that the Tories still intend to privatise Scottish water.
The major criticism of the Government concerns the wholly undemocratic way in which the reorganisation has been carried out—not by a commission, as in England and Wales, but by the Secretary of State and his cronies on the Treasury Bench. He has ignored the repeatedly expressed demand of the Scottish people for an assembly. He has compounded that error by denying the Scottish people at least a quasi-independent commission to determine the structure of Scotland's local government. The only area of change allowed for in the document is to be found in paragraph 1·4 which states that the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland will be able to review the boundaries if an anomaly arises.
I urge the Government to look at Ayrshire, for a start. How is it possible, according to that document, to have a north Ayrshire and a south Ayrshire when Skelmorlie in the north is in the same authority as Loch Doon? It is utter nonsense. It is hardly surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke as he did earlier.
The financial implications of the Secretary of State's reforms are so highly subjective as to be meaningless in any serious analysis of the proposed changes. Any reform of local government, even the abolition of Strathclyde regional council, which the Secretary of State has decided on, will result in the additional expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds of Scottish taxpayers' money in the midst of an economic recession.
In the House the other night, Tory Members of Parliament said that the Government are bankrupt. The White Paper makes it clear that the Scottish Office, too, is bankrupt of ideas.
The implications of the proposals are that there will be job losses in areas where jobs are already in short supply. It is wrong to use local authority employees as political footballs. Any reform of local government based on the Secretary of State's proposals will, by its very nature,

create democratic deficits in the accountability of many existing local government functions. A reduction in the number of local authority units will result in decisions being taken further away from, not closer to, the people.
That unaccountability will be made worse by the inevitable introduction of joint boards and quangos, whose members will be appointed by the Secretary of State, who has announced that the police, fire and water authorities in Strathclyde are to cover the same geographical area. Why does he not consider setting up a second tier of local government to cover those functions, which would then be the responsibility of directly elected representatives? What is wrong with that?
Those who are appointed will not be democratically elected councillors. They will be given only the power that the Secretary of State decides that they ought to have, according to his vision of Scottish local government. The proposals will further erode the already limited powers that Scottish local authorities have used to protect their people from the worst excesses of successive Tory Governments.
My reasons for opposing any change in the structure of Scottish local government are clear. The cost and the disruption that will be caused cannot be justified. The face of local government in Scotland will be changed for ever.
To be more specific, what will happen to the wind-up programme for the new towns in the area that I represent? In my case, that factor is critical to the well-being of Irvine new town. When will the Secretary of State answer that important question? Why is that subject not addressed in the consultative document? It is not in the White Paper at all and that is wrong.
Any reforms will simply be perceived by the Scottish people as political navel-watching at a time when the real problems in the country should be addressed. There are 300,000 unemployed in Scotland and thousands of homeless, yet the Government have decided to review local authorities.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Donohoe: The hon. Gentleman had 20 minutes—I have only 10 minutes.
Any review of Scottish local government must be undertaken in conjunction with the establishment of a local Scottish Parliament. Without that underlying principle, any reform of Scottish local government will certainly be temporary. The Secretary of State should understand that.
The Scottish people have repeatedly voted yes for reform and how we are governed. However, in voting yes, they reject the Tory philosophy completely. I reject the proposals, as do the majority of those who responded to the consultation. I reject the need for any reform in Scotland at present.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Secretary of State for Scotland has attacked the Strathclyde region on several occasions. He should remember that there are many dedicated men and women who have served Strathclyde region since it was created by a Tory Government. He did not complain too much about Strathclyde regional council when he used it to gather the


poll tax. He let that local authority take the brunt of the abusive attacks caused by the Government. At the end of the day, they had to do a U-turn.
The Secretary of State should also remember that welfare rights officers were appointed in Strathclyde region to protect the poor and those who needed protection. Many men and women in my constituency got a great deal of benefit from the advice given by those officers. Some of them were former soldiers who gave six years of their lives and did not see their friends come back. They were denied their right to services of Government Departments until Strathclyde stepped in. [Interruption.] I wish the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) would shut up. I listened to his speech—he said absolutely nothing. His constituents would he ashamed of what he said. The more he opens his mouth, the more he puts his big foot in it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) made a good point about Argyll. I was a full-time union officer in Argyll when Strathclyde took over. It was clear to me that the workers in Argyll had had to suffer at the hands of Argyll council, which was a penny-pinching authority and denied the workers their basic rights. Some of the workers had no protective clothing. The road men had no bothies in which to store their tools—they had to store them in their homes. Many of the workers said that they were glad that a Strathclyde union was coming in because they would at least get national wages and conditions and many were able to go on and be promoted. Under Strathclyde, people who worked in Dunoon were able to get promotions in places such as Greenock, Paisley and Glasgow.
It is easy for me to have a go at Strathclyde region. But if—God forbid—these proposals get through the House, some people will say, "I wish that Strathclyde was back again".
Reference was made to Tories objecting to these proposals. I am proud that I served on Glasgow district council before I came here. John Young was a councillor on that council. He was a leading Tory—no one could say that he did not defend the Tory party on that council. Lo and behold—John Young is a Glaswegian who has a great love for the city of Glasgow, and the Secretary of State cannot deny that as soon as the Tory proposals came out, John Young was one of the first to say that they are absolute rubbish.
Let us examine the accusation of gerrymandering. No matter what we call it, it is ludicrous when people who live in the Toryglen area will have to go to Hamilton for their services, although some of them live nearer the city chambers than I do. The Secretary of State will say that I am wrong about that because at one time Toryglen was not in the city of Glasgow.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Martin: I will not give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. McAvoy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to give way to an hon. Member who has knowledge of his own constituency, of which the other hon. Member has no knowledge?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman is well aware that it is for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) to decide whether to give way.

Mr. Martin: This is not simply another hon. Member's constituency. The White Paper says that the proposal is for the city of Glasgow. I am entitled to comment on a proposal that will take a place that has been part of Glasgow for a long time—Toryglen—and put it into south Lanarkshire. The logic of the Minister's argument is that at one time Toryglen did not belong to Glasgow. Springburn, Keppochhill and Maryhill did not belong to Glasgow at one time. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) does not belong to Glasgow—he stays outside it. Perhaps if he came in, we would get more population. We need a decent population in the city of Glasgow if we are to stay in a city that gives employment to most of the constituents of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I well understand the strength of feeling of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) because of his experience in local government. When we look at the empty Conservative Benches, there are few Tories because the Scottish electorate rejected them.
As we heard in an earlier ruling from the Speaker, at the end of the day the customs and conventions of the House and the English majority will force the proposals through against the wishes of the Scottish people. The Tories cannot get the democratic mandate of the Scottish people, so they use this manoeuvre to force through their policies, which the Scottish people vote against, and deny Scottish democracy. We should be trying to restore that democracy.
Local government provides a wide range of essential daily services through its councillors and elected officials. It fulfils a highly democratic function in our society by allowing people to participate in local decisions. It also provides a vast pool of expertise and professional, trained, qualified and experienced staff giving a proven service to our local communities.
Scottish local government has a proud record over the centuries for supplying services to our local communities and that is precisely what is at stake in the White Paper. The Secretary of State for Scotland has served his country well and, undoubtedly, England will be suitably pleased with him. However, Scotland has nothing to be pleased about.
This short debate is only one small protest in what will surely be an ongoing debate for days and years against the Government's political chicanery. I will be brief but my anger goes deeper than this debate will allow. From the poll tax fiasco to Rosyth and Ravenscraig, the Tory roll of shame in Scotland is long and the Government have the gall to add this political deceit to it.
The Government's plans are irretrievably rushed. There has been no real consultation on these fundamental changes. [Interruption.] If this rabble would shut up, they might learn about the Labour party's record in Government. There is an obvious contrast between the royal commission in 1969, followed by legislation in 1973, and the condensed timetable offered by this Government. In fact, the previous review of local government started in


1963. It took a total of 10 years from the commencement of the review to the final enactment of legislation. The Scottish Office published its present consultation paper in October 1992 and invited submissions up to January 1993.
Wheatley undertook visits, held meetings and seminars with academics and experts, and placed public notices in the press inviting both oral and written evidence. He commissioned studies and even had an intelligence unit aiding the previous reform of local government. All that suggests that that remit was taken very seriously. If the previous reform took over 10 years to gestate and then failed, what serious chance has the present rushed reform of lasting anything like the 20 years of the previous reorganisation?
There has been no attempt to match communities to the new local government units, which are merely political conveniences for the discredited Tory party. The English get a commission, the Scots get gerrymandering. Like the poll tax, Scotland once more will be the Government's guinea pig. There has been no attempt truly to involve local government officials or the public or councillors before the structure of the proposed change was decided by central Government.
The Government's proposals are fundamentally flawed. There has been no community of interest locally between Kincardine and Angus, or between Perthshire and Angus. There has been no community of interest through employment or through local government practice. The proposals have been introduced irrespective of past and present work, or social and historical patterns. That approach is being mirrored throughout the country; the proposals are for the pure political convenience of the Tory party and not the result of the will or wish of the people.
The previous Scottish local government reform, which was given all the promises that we have heard from the Government tonight, lasted less than 20 years. Before that, reforms lasted for 50 or even 100 years. The new reform looks as though it will last even less time than the 1973 reform, because of the way in which it has been introduced and because of its substance.
The rush to legislate simply guarantees a period of instability, unemployment and the disruption of daily services. The Government have clearly forgotten the cost of chaos and the reality of running parallel authorities from the past local government reform. Why should the reform occur through silly gerrymandering and an effort to govern by deceit?
The Scottish people clearly rejected the Tories at previous elections, yet the Government are now inflicting those rejected policies and philosophy through a series of unelected and publicly unaccountable quangos. There has been an attempt to bypass the democratic process in Scotland. The boundaries have not been agreed and discussed with local communities, but are simply a civil service solution produced under the direction of the Tory party.
The local service proposals are the ultimate sell-out. They represent privatisation through the back door with stealth, through the creation of an unelected, unaccountable quango. The Tories who were rejected by the electorate are now ruling Scotland by a whole series of such unelected and unaccountable quangos—the opposite of democracy.
The process by which the Government issue a consultative document, only then promptly to ignore the

results, is also the opposite of democracy. They prefer proposals that are overwhelmingly rejected by the Scottish people. Public pressure has forced a retreat from outright privatisation of water, as the Government originally wanted, but that has resulted in privatisation by two sips rather than one gulp. Scots want local-government-run water services, not the quango-controlled system nominated by and under the direction of the Secretary of State.
I noticed that the Secretary of State was careful to give us absolutely no details of what the legislation will entail. I hope that he changes that by telling us what was in the Quayle-Munro report and exactly what the Government have in mind.
Every customer in Scotland will await price rises, existing staff can expect disruption and redundancies, and we shall get all that is unnecessary and unwanted in both local government and water services.
The local government restructuring is different in kind and nature. There has been no real consultation, no royal commission, and no cross-party consensus, except among the people who opposed it. I reject with disgust the gerrymandered boundary reorganisation and the theft of Scotland's water resources. I seek in its place a strong, autonomous local government system, based on true local communities and founded after close consultation with those communities.
Any review must meet three important criteria. Scotland must receive equal treatment. If there is a commission in England, there must be something similar in Scotland. There must be maximum consultation that reflects the views of the Scottish people, and there must be democratic control over education, police and fire which must not be switched to central Government quangos.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Welsh: No. The hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench spokesman wishes to wind up.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is winding us all up.

Mr. Welsh: It is a pity that the hon. Member is not wound up by what I am saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding great difficulty in hearing the hon. Member for Angus, East.

Mr. Welsh: May I say to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) who is trying to intervene, and to all the hon. Members making a racket behind me, that it is no use going through the motions of having photo calls outside 10 Downing street. Scotland expects more than that. That technique failed for Rosyth, it failed for Ravenscraig, and it will fail again because of the nature of the House. It is time that the Labour party joined others to ensure that Scottish views prevail.
Scotland has every right to feel betrayed by the Government's botched, unfair and undemocratic proposals. It is time that Scots united to ensure that the proposals are defeated.

Mr. Henry McLeish: We do not need any lectures from the Scottish National party about defending Scotland's interest in the Chamber. May I


remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party has 49 Scottish seats and the SNP has a miserable three seats, and its work rate is nothing to commend it?
The Secretary of State today treated local government in Scotland with maximum contempt. It was a disgraceful speech that did not address the key issues. It was a knockabout speech, at a time when we deserve to know why some of the decisions in the White Paper were made. More importantly, why is the Secretary of State willing to ride on the back of the rantings of his Back Benchers over Monklands? He knows that he has the power to set up an inquiry. He should either put up or shut up on that issue.
The debate has exposed the organised hypocrisy masquerading as government in Scotland, and it has explained why the Conservatives are so deeply unpopular there. Only a rump of Tory Members, led by a ragbag of Tory Ministers, could have produced such a dog's breakfast and called it a reform. The reform of local government is irrelevant to the needs of Scottish people, damaging to the people who depend on its services and dismissive of democracy.
The Secretary of State must shoulder much of the responsibility for the mess. Why is he plumbing new depths of political dishonesty? Why is he unwilling to distinguish between the interests of the Conservative party and the interests of the country? The democratic credentials of the Secretary of State now lie in tatters. He failed in Rosyth, he has failed in local government and he has failed on the issue of water. How many failures does he need to have before he reconsiders his position?
Much of the debate has concentrated on the Tories and their gerrymandering of boundaries. We have heard pathetic excuses that the proposed action is not gerrymandering, but good government. We know that, if there is an Operation Safe Haven and the only real people who are consulted are Tory Members, one ends up with a gerrymandered map of Scotland, which carries with it all the responsibility of the governing party.
The key question is what criteria were used to gerrymander the boundaries of East Renfrewshire, Berwickshire, East Lothian and Stirling. Did they use history, geography, culture or a bit of economics? The criterion was simply the vested interests of the crew on the Government Benches, who could not care about the wishes of Scottish people and who will now do everything from that base position of 16 per cent. to win any credibility they can.
We hear the Government lecture us about the vested interests in local government. They mean the 300,000 employees who, every day of the week, provide some of the best services in Europe. If that is a vested interest, I and my colleagues will speak up for them. If our councillors, who do such sterling work, are another vested interest, I have no doubt that I and my colleagues will be willing to stand up and be counted. What is utterly disgraceful is that the Tory party stands up for its own vested interest and is unconcerned about what is happening around it.
This debate is a watershed in Scottish politics since 1929, because we have never in that period had a major reform of local government which has smacked of contempt and of a lack of concern for those who are the beneficiaries of the service. We know that there is no case.
What is the justification for this massive upheaval? There is no consensus. How on earth can the reforms endure? My hon. Friends have made the point that one cannot sustain the reforms without a consensus in which every political party and every section of Scotland is committed to them. No one will be committed to the proposals. They will not endure, because the Government have ignored the basic tenet of democratic politics, which is to arrive at a consensus. If there is no consensus, my hon. Friends will not be committed to the proposals. The proposals will have no credibility, and the people of Scotland will have little confidence in proposals that do not have that consensus.
My hon. Friends have raised the question of a commission. Even the English have a commission. Why has the Secretary of State declined to give the Scots a commission? Why will the Government not put the matter to an independent test—to an independent commission? We should be happy to contribute proposals to such a commission. Why does the Secretary of State not do the same? We know the reason. The proposals will introduce a corrupted map of local government. The proposals are all about the Conservative party, and if they were exposed to the light of an independent commission, they would simply be shown up for what they are.
The other key issue raised by the proposals is constitutional change. If we had a Scottish Parliament sitting in Scotland—

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: You will not have.

Mr. McLeish: We will.
If we had a Scottish Parliament, Scots would be allowed to look at their own boundaries sensibly and sensitively, and they would be able to draw up a future that they wanted—not a future that satisfied the Conservative party, but a future that would take local government into the next century and would carry on the proud tradition of the previous 100 years.
If there is one part of the proposals that smacks not only of gerrymandering but of manipulation, it is the section dealing with costs. The Government have brought comic farce to financial accounting in the proposals. The Government took on Touche Ross. The National Audit Office in Scotland is now interested in carrying out a study into why £50,000 of taxpayers' money was spent on such a flawed exercise. The first exercise came up with transitional costs and on-going costs over five years, but the Government did not allow that. It was suggested that there might not be any savings, but that there would be substantial costs.
What did the Government do? They went back to Touche Ross and the civil servants, and came up not with a five-year period, but with a 15-year period. They paraded around at the weekend saying that they would save £1 billion up to the year 2010. Why not 3010, in which case the figure would be £6 billion? Why not 4010, in which case the figure would be £12 billion? What an utter absurdity. The fact that we have been asked to participate in discussions on the White Paper on the basis of those bogus figures is a scandal of massive proportions. We dispute the figures for savings, because there will be none.
There is no disguising the fact that, in the next three years, £200 million of costs will be incurred. Where will the money come from? It will not come from the Treasury. The money will come from services being cut and from the


council tax being increased. Will the Minister tell Scotland that our present council tax levels will be safe in Tory hands when the reforms take place? They will not be, because the council tax and cuts in service will pay for this collective madness.
A lobby is here today. We want the Secretary of State and his Ministers to reassure the 300,000 Scots who work in the service about their future. We want those workers to know, unlike the workers at Rosyth, that they have a future, that they will not simply be disregarded. Who on earth believes that only 2,200 people will leave the service over the next few years? Again I ask the Secretary of State for a reassurance for servants who have made a valuable contribution to the quality of life in Scotland. All the proposals add up to no case at all.
What about services? We have heard much talk about all-purpose authorities. Those all-purpose authorities will be multi-purpose authorities, because there will be a degree of centralisation unprecedented in Scottish politics. There will be commercialisation and then joint committees. Struggling beneath that will be the so-called "all-purpose" authorities. That is astonishing. They certainly will not be all-purpose authorities as the Government pretend.
If there is one issue above all others on which contempt has been heaped, it is the discussion about water. Many of my hon. Friends have made the point that we are at a halfway house towards ultimate privatisation. That is clear. We shall have three boards. Why three? No one has given us a reason why there should be three. Why not have six, or one? No details are given in the three paragraphs out of the 30 pages.
We are being softened up for the privatisation of water. The first step is centralisation, which will be followed by privatisation. No Conservative Member will mention the F-word—franchising. The word does not appear in the White Paper. Why not? There is no escaping the conclusion that the Government are moving surely and steadily towards the sell-off of Scottish water. It may not happen next year, but that is their intention. Scotland will not be fooled by the utterances and bogus reassurances it has received from Ministers.
If all of that was not bad enough, there is the point, which many of my hon. Friends have made, about the democratic deficit. Deep down in the debate is the question of costs and the question of consensus, but there is also the fundamental question of democracy. Democracy is being undermined by services being transferred to the marketplace and to the Scottish Office.
We are seeing an attack on the balance between local and central Government which is essential to the constitution. We are seeing a system being corrupted, and being made more unstable and more vulnerable to commercialisation and privatisation. We in Scotland are proud of our deep sense of security and our deep sense of collective provision, which are in danger of being abandoned irreversibly by the Government.
The proposals are unwanted, unnecessary, undemocratic and uniquely irrelevant to the people of Scotland. They deserve no support in the House, and we will certainly not support them. We will oppose them at every opportunity.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): We have had a most enjoyable debate. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish)—I shall come to his more serious points later—continued his customary rant and scaremongering. I shall deal at the outset with his point about local authority staff. We estimate that reorganisation could lead to a reduction in total staff numbers of 1 per cent. That is against a background in which local authority staff in Scotland last year increased by 2 per cent., which puts the matter into context.
A number of positive points have been made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) pointed out that every group leader in the city wanted a single-tier system and wanted the city of Aberdeen to be a single-tier authority. My hon. Friend asked the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for an apology to the city of Aberdeen; an apology has not been received.

Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister accept the challenge that I offered the Secretary of State? He keeps referring to Monklands. He has the power to set up an independent inquiry. Will he put up or shut up?

Mr. Stewart: I thought I was talking about Aberdeen, but I can express some hope for the hon. Member's interest in Monklands. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is interested in serving on the Standing Committee, and no doubt his extensive researches on Scottish local government will be available to hon. Members.

Several hon. Members: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: Not at the moment.
My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the accusation of gerrymandering in relation to—

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that the Minister has sought to pre-empt the work of the Committee of Selection, and has done so by referring to matters that are clearly extraneous to the contents of any Bill. I hope that you will draw the matter to the attention of the Committee of Selection.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is responsible for his own speech, and no Standing Committee is involved in this debate. [Interruption.] Order. So far, I have had great difficulty hearing what the Minister has had to say.

Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that Opposition Members will give me the chance to develop my speech. I repeat that I said that I understood that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover might be interested in serving on the Committee. That does not pre-empt any decision of the Committee of Selection or of anyone else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South rightly answered the charge that the Government are somehow gerrymandering through the proposal to bring Westhill into the city of Aberdeen. He rightly pointed out that Westhill does not have a single Conservative councillor at either regional or district level, so that accusation cannot be sustained.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) reminded us of the importance of


rural areas. He underlined the common sense of the proposals in the White Paper that city authorities should be surrounded by strong rural authorities where the interests were quite different.
My hon. Friend expressed his concern about particular boundaries, as did a number of Opposition Members. Frankly, it would be surprising if the Government produced a set of proposals on boundaries which received immediate and universal acclaim, because people differ.

Mr. Wallace: I think the Minister accepted that there has not been exactly total acclaim for all the boundaries that he has proposed. What level of opposition will he take account of in amending boundaries? What size of petition and what kind of opposition will he take as evidence that what he is proposing is unacceptable to a local community?

Mr. Stewart: First, we have had a period of consultation. Secondly, that will be a matter for Parliament to decide. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there can be legitimate differences of view on boundaries, but my right hon. Friend and I will take seriously the points that are made to us in the Committee.

Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that the regional ward of Kings Park Toryglen, which it is recommended should be included in south Lanarkshire, is more than 50 per cent. Rutherglen and Lanarkshire area and more than 50 per cent. Rutherglen and Lanarkshire population? Bearing in mind his last statement, will the Minister also assure me that he will accept it from me, as the Member of Parliament for Toryglen, that I want that area to remain part of the city of Glasgow, where it has always been and should stay?

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I assure him that we shall listen to people such as himself when there is a constituency question. Then we will consider whether appropriate changes need to be made during the passage of the Bill—

Mr. David Marshall: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: No. I have given way a number of times, and I have to sit down in a few minutes.
I welcome the excellent speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) made on behalf of his constituents, in which he pointed out the importance and relevance of the Government's proposals for the best interests of his constituents. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) would pay a tribute to the council that he represents, which is generally recognised to be—

Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My colleagues and I wish to object that we have not been able to put our point of view to the Secretary of State about our objection to the inclusion of Toryglen in our area.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that as many hon. Members as possible have been called in the time available.

Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the Committee of Selection will choose the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) for the Committee, and he will doubtless have many hours to put forward his point of view.
I had hoped that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would say that—on the basis of his experience as a constituency Member—although he might disagree with some of the boundaries proposed by the Government, there was a strong case for single-tier authorities.

Mrs. Ray Michie: No.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) is remonstrating. I will give way to her if she wishes. She walked out of the Chamber last Thursday, throwing the White Paper back to the Secretary of State—I am grateful for that, because we are running low on copies. The White Paper implements the views of Argyll and Bute for a single-tier authority based on Argyll and Bute.

Mrs. Michie: The Minister should know from our submissions to the Secretary of State that the Scottish Liberal Democrats have always been in favour of single-tier local authorities, but with a Scottish Parliament. [Laughter.] If Conservative Members care to read the submission, they will understand why.
While the Minister is talking about Argyll and Bute, I welcome the fact that it is to be a single-tier local authority, but it will be interesting to see the result of putting Helensburgh, which has no historical link with Argyll, into that area.

Mr. Stewart: The independent council and polls in the Helensburgh area are overwhelmingly in favour of that.
We turn next—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I regret that I cannot give way. I have only three or four minutes left.
I turn next to the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) says that there is no support for the Government's proposals. I refer him to the following statement in The Press and Journal of 30 June:
I will be very pleased if, as the information available indicates, the council will be retained.
His hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) made that statement. She clearly supports what the White Paper proposes.

Mr. Welsh: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I cannot give way.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Stewart: I have given way on several occasions. The hon. Member for Monklands, West refused to give way.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central is normally meticulous in his research on such matters, and he mentioned costs. I was surprised that he did not refer to the submission from his regional council. Perhaps I should remind him of what that submission said.

Mr. McLeish: indicated dissent.

Mr. Stewart: Has the hon. Gentleman not read the submission of his own council'? Dear me, that is not very good. It strongly supported the retention of the kingdom of Fife, and that Labour regional council argued that a single-tier Fife council would produce annual savings of £4·9 million, as opposed to transitional costs of £5·5 million. It argued that the total savings over a longer period would be more than £42 million at net present value.
Those are not the Government's figures, but figures produced by a Labour authority which is going to continue in the single-tier system. That is a good example of how much nonsense has been talked by Opposition Members. When they consult their local councillors in a number of areas, they will find that many Labour councillors, such as the convener of Fife, support what the Government are saying. Does the hon. Member want to hear what he said? The hon. Gentleman will find a constructive response from the councils in Central region, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, in marked contrast to the slogans that we have heard from hon. Members today. We do not know whether the Labour party wants a commission or whether it will reverse the proposals, if elected. The Labour party has no policy; we have the policies. I commend the Government amendment to the House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister says that he does not know whether the Opposition support a commission. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having great difficulty hearing what hon. Members have to say. If we cannot hear in this Chair, we cannot conduct the business properly. I call Mr. Tom Clarke, and I hope that it is a point of order.

Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he was not aware whether the Opposition supported a commission. May I through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, point out that it is clear in the motion before the House that we do indeed support a commission?

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 316.

Division No. 333]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Betts, Clive


Adams, Mrs Irene
Blair, Tony


Ainger, Nick
Blunkett, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Boateng, Paul


Allen, Graham
Boyce, Jimmy


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Boyes, Roland


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bradley, Keith


Armstrong, Hilary
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Barnes, Harry
Burden, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Byers, Stephen


Battle, John
Caborn, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Benton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Bermingham, Gerald
Cann, Jamie


Berry, Dr. Roger
Chisholm, Malcolm





Clapham, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Coffey, Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hutton, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ingram, Adam


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jamieson, David


Cousins, Jim
Janner, Greville


Cox, Tom
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cummings, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Darling, Alistair
Jowell, Tessa


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Alan


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Khabra, Piara S.


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Dixon, Don
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Frank
Leighton, Ron


Donohoe, Brian H.
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dowd, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Litherland, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Livingstone, Ken


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eastham, Ken
Llwyd, Elfyn


Enright, Derek
Loyden, Eddie


Etherington, Bill
Lynne, Ms Liz


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAllion, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McAvoy, Thomas


Fatchett, Derek
McCartney, Ian


Faulds, Andrew
Macdonald, Calum


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McKelvey, William


Fisher, Mark
Mackinlay, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
McLeish, Henry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Don (Bath)
McNamara, Kevin


Foulkes, George
McWilliam, John


Fyfe, Maria
Madden, Max


Galbraith, Sam
Mahon, Alice


Galloway, George
Mandelson, Peter


Gapes, Mike
Marek, Dr John


Garrett, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gerrard, Neil
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Martlew, Eric


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Maxton, John


Godsiff, Roger
Meacher, Michael


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gordon, Mildred
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gould, Bryan
Milburn, Alan


Graham, Thomas
Miller, Andrew


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morgan, Rhodri


Gunnell, John
Morley, Elliot


Hain, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hall, Mike
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hanson, David
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Hardy, Peter
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mudie, George


Harvey, Nick
Mullin, Chris


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Murphy, Paul


Henderson, Doug
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Hara, Edward


Hoey, Kate
Olner, William


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Neill, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hood, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom






Pickthall, Colin
Soley, Clive


Pike, Peter L.
Spearing, Nigel


Pope, Greg
Spellar, John


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Law'm E)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stott, Roger


Prescott, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Straw, Jack


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Raynsford, Nick
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Redmond, Martin
Tipping, Paddy


Reid, Dr John
Tyler, Paul


Rendel, David
Vaz, Keith


Richardson, Jo
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wallace, James


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Walley, Joan


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
Watson, Mike


Rooney, Terry
Welsh, Andrew


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Rowlands, Ted
Wigley, Dafydd


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Salmond, Alex
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wilson, Brian


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wise, Audrey


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Worthington, Tony


Short, Clare
Wray, Jimmy


Simpson, Alan
Wright, Dr Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Alan Meale.


Snape, Peter





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Aitken, Jonathan
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butler, Peter


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cash, William


Ashby, David
Chapman, Sydney


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, Mr


Atkins, Robert
Clappison, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Congdon, David


Bates, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beggs, Roy
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bellingham, Henry
Cormack, Patrick


Bendall, Vivian
Couchman, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Body, Sir Richard
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Booth, Hartley
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Devlin, Tim


Bowden, Andrew
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowis, John
Dicks, Terry


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Brandreth, Gyles
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Duncan, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Dunn, Bob


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dykes, Hugh


Budgen, Nicholas
Eggar, Tim





Elletson, Harold
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lidington, David


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garnier, Edward
Major, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Malone, Gerald


Gillan, Cheryl
Mans, Keith


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marlow, Tony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Merchant, Piers


Hague, William
Milligan, Stephen


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Sir Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, Andrew
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Nick
Needham, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heald, Oliver
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hendry, Charles
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hicks, Robert
Norris, Steve


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Ottaway, Richard


Horam, John
Page, Richard


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Paice, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Robathan, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Key, Robert
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard






Sackville, Tom
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trend, Michael


Shersby, Michael
Trimble, David


Sims, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Sir Keith
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spencer, Sir Derek
Walden, George


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Ward, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spring, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Sproat, Iain
Watts, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Stephen, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stewart, Allan
Wilkinson, John


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David


Sumberg, David
Wilshire, David


Sweeney, Walter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sykes, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomason, Roy
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Derek Conway.


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the publication of the White Paper "Shaping the Future—The New Councils"; and considers that its proposals will lead to better and more efficient local government in Scotland, based on a single tier of strong and accountable all-purpose authorities.

Orders of the Day — Debt, Trade and Development

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House, noting that the indebtedness of the Southern world now exceeds £1,000 billion, which both cripples their development and holds back economic growth in the Northern world, and noting the failure of the G7 Summit to agree any new significant programme of debt relief or to ensure any adequate place for developing countries in future world trading patterns via the GATT Uruguay Round, calls upon the Government to prepare a new British and international initiative for debt write-off for the poorest countries, and also to take the lead in setting out a trading framework which will ensure that developing countries can play their full share in the world trading system and will promote environmentally sound development.
For the developing countries throughout the world, the G7 summit in Tokyo last week was not merely a disappointment; it was a cause for real despair. The situation in most of the third world, and certainly the poorest parts of it, is extremely serious and getting worse, not better. The G7 summit merely washed its hands of it.
It is not simply that indebtedness in the southern world now exceeds the astronomic level of £1 trillion—£1,000 billion; it is rather that debt levels are not falling, but increasing at an accelerating rate. According to the World bank, the increase in indebtedness in the past two years alone has been nearly £300 billion, which is equal to almost half Britain's entire gross national product.
It is not simply that the share in world trade of the poorest continent, Africa, has been falling over the past decade; it is rather that the protracted depression in world commodity prices, on which the poorest countries absolutely depend, makes their economic recovery impossible.
It is not simply that aid-flows from western nations—most notably Britain—have fallen sharply over the past decade and are continuing to fall, with overall resource flows to sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the poorest part of the world, estimated at 8 per cent. lower last year than in 1989; it is much rather that the flow of funds has gone into reverse. The southern world now pays Britain more in debt repayments than it receives in aid, with a net inflow into the United Kingdom in 1990 of £2·5 billion.
On all three counts—debt, trade and aid—the situation of the third world is clearly rapidly deteriorating and must now be a priority for international action. However, the indifference of the G7 summit to the steadily evolving disaster in the south, despite the fact that it also holds back recovery in the north, is matched only by the unreadiness of the British Government to deal effectively with any of those looming disasters.
I take debt first and foremost as it is the most important. I make it clear that I commend the Prime Minister on his initiative as Chancellor in 1989 in proposing the Trinidad terms for a two thirds write-off of debts for some of the poorest countries. I say that without qualification. It was a very useful initiative. But we must put that in perspective. It has applied to only 14 countries.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): It applies to 17 countries. I shall clarify that later.

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for the correction. That is a marginal and welcome improvement.
The £1 billion write-off that it has secured, of which the United Kingdom's share is just £65 million, represents less than 0·1 per cent. of total third world debt. That puts it into perspective. Since the Prime Minister originally proposed it, £1 billion has been written off, but the total debt burden has increased by some £400 billion. The effect of the Prime Minister's initiative has, therefore, been extremely limited. No one could deny that. Some might say it has been infinitesimal. Indeed, the British Government have been far more concerned with paying money to British banks to protect them against possible default on their world debt than they have been to provide debt relief to third world countries. According to the Government's figures, between 1987 and 1992 the Government handed out £2·25 billion—more than the entire annual aid budget—in tax relief to United Kingdom banks against the possibility that debtor countries might default on their debt service obligations, although in fact they have not done so.
As a result of the Finance Act 1986, British taxpayers have been forced to pay huge sums to bail the banks out of a crisis which, frankly, was partly of the banks own making, when not a penny of that money has been passed to third world countries to relieve their debt. We now have the totally indefensible situation in which the Government are heavily subsidising United Kingdom banks against possible debt default, and none of that money is helping the poverty-stricken indebted countries. Yet, as the Minister said in answer to one of my questions on 15 February, from 1987 to 1991
net payments to United Kingdom banks from developing countries over the last five years"—[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 5–6.]
totalled £4·8 billion. That is an absolutely stunning figure. How can the Minister and the Government conceivably justify it? I do not know whether the Minister wishes to intervene to answer that. I do not want to go through what happened the other night, but I shall give him the opportunity to respond if he wishes to do so. He obviously does not wish to respond, but we will expect an answer later.
Although the Trinidad terms make a tiny contribution, they do not begin to match the enormity of the problem. Over the past decade, Africa's debt has more than tripled from 28 per cent. of GNP to 109 per cent. In other words, Africa now owes more than its entire annual income. Many sub-Saharan countries, the poorest of all, and including those now embarking on post-war reconstruction and which need assistance, such as Mozambique, Ethiopia and Eritrea, owe three times their national incomes, or more. Zambia, for example, where the average wage is $300 a year, owes $1,000 in debt for every man, woman and child.
When debt reaches those astronomical levels—and they are astronomical—it is patently unrepayable. Yet for the G7, including Britain, to ignore that not only snuffs out indefinitely the prospects for recovery for much of the southern world but undermines growth prospects and job opportunities for the northern world.
For the past four years—I do not think that this statement needs qualification—the Government have done nothing new to deal with the mounting debt catastrophe. In trade, the G7, including Britain, is scarcely serving the third world any better. The protection of

northern markets by northern countries costs third-world countries an estimated £100 billion a year. That, of course, does not count the damage caused by common agricultural policy food exports being offloaded on to world markets. The sums for trade greatly exceed the total of official aid.
Of course, I am the first to accept that the Uruguay round of GATT will bring benefits to the third world, but the poorest countries under the existing arrangements are still likely to be worse off. They will often be unable to take advantage of new market opportunities, yet they have to open up to foreign competition. The relative value of their current trade preferences will be reduced, and fledgling service sectors in the third world may be wiped out. New rules on intellectual property will make technology transfer and economic development more difficult.
Above all, I emphasise the fact that GATT will not tackle the commodity crisis, which is at the heart of the developing countries' problems. Their indebtedness escalated in the late 1980s because they were caught in the trap between plummeting commodity prices and soaring interest rates. What is unforgivable is that Government policy, like that, I admit, of other donor countries, makes the problem a great deal worse by supporting structural adjustment programmes which hinge on making poor countries export more. When, under pressure, they export more, they of course contribute to oversupply and thus drive prices down still further. How can the Government continue to support trade policies which reinforce the vicious spiral of poverty and decline, which is what has been happening for several years?
On aid, the G7 summit agreed that development assistance should be enhanced. I welcome that conclusion, but the Government have made no commitments to respond. I do not think it is difficult to see why. Britain's record on aid—to put it no finer—is thoroughly depressing. Since 1979, Britain's official development assistance has fallen from 0·5 per cent. to 0·3 per cent. of GNP. Last year, the Government spent less than the Development Assistance Committee average and less than half the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP. I am well aware that the Government insist that they will hit that target as, I suppose, the English cricket team does, although the latter are more honest about their likelihood of reaching the target.
The Government's aid budget is still being cut, and it fell last year. I can give the Minister the figures if he is in any doubt. These are Government figures. Last year, the aid budget fell 4 per cent. in real terms and is now only three-quarters of the level of aid spending in 1979. Worse still, of course, is that the Government are proposing a two-year freeze on aid which even the Overseas Development Administration admits will knock a further £150 million off the aid budget. When the lower purchasing power of the pound after the black Wednesday devaluation is taken into account, it is more probable that the cut will be nearer to £250 million.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am always amazed by some of the statistics with which the hon. Gentleman is briefed, because they are always at complete variance with my figures. I wish to make two points. The aid programme has risen in real terms by 10 per cent. since 1987–88.

Mr. Tony Worthington: What about the past 14 years?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I said since 1987–88.

Mr. Meacher: What about last year?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman says last year, but I am talking about the previous six years. Let me answer. The budget for the financial year 1993–94 has risen 1 per cent. in real terms when compared with last year.

Mr. Meacher: Listening to the Minister's weasel words, one might assume that the Government came to power in pieces and that the ODA only gained power in 1987. I remind him that the Government came to power in 1979. Since then there has been a large fall in aid levels of about 17 per cent. in real terms. The Government have done just about everything in the book to downgrade the aid programme. They have pensioned off the Minister with responsibility for aid to another place and have left the hon. Gentleman in charge in this House. After his performance in the debate two evenings ago, I will forbear to comment further as it is all there to read in the record.
The aid programme has been almost halved. It is now being frozen. In the next decade, up to 40 per cent. of it will be passed to the European Community's aid programme, which the Government have always said is inferior in quality. Much of the rest is now being transferred from the dirt-poor south to the much better-off eastern Europeon and former Soviet Union countries, and the remainder is subject to an increasingly restrictive political and economic conditionality, which is often counter-productive. Short of demanding that, in future, aid be given only in exchange for donations to the Tory party, I do not see what more the Government could do to downgrade their aid programme.
If the Tories were really concerned about aid and development, if they really cared about a vision of one world, there is a very great deal that they could and should do now.
On debt, they should prepare a new debt relief package for the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank and for the meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers. This should propose debt write-off of 80 to 100 per cent. for the very poorest countries, whose debt, in any case, is manifestly unrepayable. The Trinidad terms should be revised to grant debt relief on the whole stock of debt—not just, as at present, on the debt falling in the next three years or incurred before a cut-off date. The Government should come forward with a strategy to reduce multilateral debt. I might add that 91 per cent., I think, of the indebtedness of sub-Saharan Africa is multilateral, not bilateral. Thus, this is a very important area, in respect of which we need a new strategy. We need a strategy to halt what is now a net transfer of resources to the IMF—either through a new issue of special drawing rights or through the sale of IMF gold stocks.
On trade, the Government certainly should, and could, be much more helpful in the renegotiation of international commodity agreements in order to tackle what I have described as the worst aspects of the commodity crisis. They should, and could, explore ways of helping to compensate the developing countries for the losses that they face under the GATT agreement, and they should support the African diversification fund, as proposed under the United Nations programme of action for African recovery, with a view to promoting the desperately needed switch into processing.
On aid, the Government should support the demand of the non-governmental organisations that official development aid to sub-Saharan Africa in 1994–95 be increased by at least £100 million. If the Minister is concerned about where the money might come from, I suggest that the aid could well be paid for by reducing the subsidy to the banks against non-existing default. The Government should also give a commitment that United Kingdom aid to sub-Saharan Africa—the poorest part of the world—will continue to increase, in real terms, during the life of this Parliament.
Finally, if the Government are really concerned about aid and development, as the Labour party is, they will drop this dog's breakfast in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and set up a Cabinet-level department of international development, as Labour is pledged to do. That would give the handling of these issues the political clout and the administrative weight that they urgently need. It is on those grounds that I strongly commend the motion to the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the motion, and to add instead thereof:
'noting the problems of indebtedness and restricted trade access in hampering the growth of developing countries, welcomes the agreement by the G7 countries in Tokyo to consider improved debt reduction terms for the poorest and most indebted countries, including the possibility of earlier action on reducing the stock of debt on a case by case basis in accordance with the Prime Minister's Trinidad Terms initiative, to make all efforts to enhance development assistance, and to seek to achieve a successful Uruguay Round before the end of the year.'.
I try to take the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) seriously, but so often I find that his gift for exaggeration and his thrashing about in so many directions completely destroy the impact of any point he might be trying to make. I shall make a few overall comments, during the course of which I hope to give some reply to the hon. Gentleman's words. As he said, I am the Minister responsible for defending the Government in respect of aid matters. However, as hon. Members know, this debate is not just about aid; it is very much about trade and debt and about sensible policies in the developing world as well. As it is about trade as well as aid, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who is responsible for these matters, will reply to the debate. He will be able to give the House some enlightenment in addition to my comments about the recent Tokyo summit and the prospects for the GATT round.
The Tokyo summit paid very close attention to the problems of the developing world. Quite contrary to the emphasis that the hon. Gentleman sought to attribute, the fruits are contained in the economic declaration. I strongly advise the hon. Gentleman to read that declaration more carefully than he can have done so far, so that he may recognise the force of what I am saying. In any case, I shall illustrate the point by further argument in the course of my remarks. First, I should like to say a few words about the Tokyo breakthrough on trade liberalisation, which is also of great importance to the developing world.
For the past four years the G7 summits, in their communiques, have called on the international community to work for the early completion of the Uruguay round.


In previous years that call had gone unanswered. This year the situation was different: the summit acted as a catalyst for the consensus on market access in certain key areas reached by the trade negotiators in the four areas known as the Quad—the United States, Canada, Japan and the European Community. This was a great sticking point in the whole process of the GATT round. To have overcome it means that the prospects for agreement on the GATT round by the end of the year are greatly enhanced. That will be enormously to the benefit of the developing world.
This is a crucial building block of the elements that will need to be put in place in Geneva by all the participants to ensure a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round. As I have indicated, that success is crucial to the developing world. The reason—and this is the context in which the debate should be placed—is that developing countries earn three times as much income from trade flows as from aid. Trade is essential to the developing world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course."] Hon. Members say, "Of course." They too are stating the obvious. Let me say what I think is very important, even if they find it obvious.
Success would give a terrific boost to the world economy. There would be renewed confidence in investment overseas. In specific terms for the third world, the restrictions placed on subsidised agricultural exports would give developing countries a better chance to compete at home and abroad. Such a prize will be within our grasp in Geneva in the coming months, and we intend to keep up the momentum until there is a successful resolution.

Mr. John Battle: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall give way very briefly, but I am conscious of the fact that many hon. Members want to speak.

Mr. Battle: The truth, which did not come out at the summit, is that the GATT round will leave the poorest countries worse off. As the relative value of their trade preferences declines, they will be forced to open up their markets to foreign competition, but they will not be in a position to enjoy the advantages. Therefore, their trade flows will be in the opposite direction. Why was that not appreciated at the G7 summit?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If Opposition Members truly believe that, it is clear that there is a fundamental divide between us. I utterly reject that sort of thinking. Let me explain why. [Interruption.] I do not simply assert that. If I am given a chance, I will explain why.
I reject that thinking because the annual volume of world aid to the developing world is $60 billion. The annual volume of world trade to the developing world is worth three times that amount, $180 billion. The GATT round will increase world trade benefit to the developing world by $90 billion. That is half the trade figure that I just quoted and it represents a gigantic boost to the trading and economic prospects of the third world.
If we pursue that point any further we shall end up arguing about matters that we shall unable to resolve and all that we shall be able to do is to identify that there is a disagreement between us.

Mr. Worthington: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, but for the last time.

Mr. Worthington: This is a crucial point. Can the Minister tell us whether the manufactured or processed products of the third world will now be allowed into our markets without any problems? At present, tariffs must be paid on processed goods from the third world. Have those restrictions been swept away by the G7?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The G7 is not an implementing body, but a debating one. We have, however, carried the argument about trade restrictions a stage further. The hon. Gentleman must accept that Britain, and the Conservative Government in particular, cannot be faulted in wanting to relieve the world of restrictions in trade. At every forum and at every opportunity, we seek to reduce the restrictions on world trade.
The multi-fibre arrangement was discussed at the Tokyo summit. We are arguing for further liberalisation of that arrangement, which will help the third world. I will say more about that if I can get on with my speech.

Mr. Worthington: So the answer to my question is no.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question could not be yes. Of course all restrictions were not removed by that meeting in Tokyo. As I said, the G7 is not a decision-implementing body, but one in which matters are debated and arguments taken further forward.

Mr. Jim Lester: May I recommend to Opposition Members that they read the book prepared by the Overseas Development Institute, which provides detailed information about the GATT round and is extremely careful in its assessment of the impact of that round? It came to the conclusion that the third world would benefit from the GATT round.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful intervention, which will enable some Opposition Members to learn rather more about the subject. Even if they do not agree with the judgment given, they will come to appreciate that a large body of extremely respectable opinion shares my view—a view that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has also confirmed.

Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not frightened of giving way, because I have given way every time I have been requested to do so, but if I continue to do that I shall deprive hon. Members of sufficient time for debate. I will give way just once more.

Mr. Enright: Which commodities coming from the least developed countries will benefit from GATT?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I intend to say something about the multi-fibre arrangement in a moment.
It is the view of the Government and of many thinkers on the subject that increased trade is the central key to development. It enables developing countries to increase their own living standards. Development involves a partnership between the developed and the developing world and a comprehensive approach is needed.
Four essential elements are required to help the poor of the world. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West highlighted, it is important that aid is well targeted. A debt


strategy is also important. I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate to the House that that strategy was taken a stage further by discussion at Tokyo. The other overwhelmingly important element is trade and investment by other countries in the poor countries. [Interruption.] The figures demonstrate how important that is. That is not my blind assertion—it is backed up by the figures that I gave the House just a few moments ago.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West could have tabled a question at any stage to find out how many countries had benefited from the Trinidad terms. He asserted that 14 countries had benefited, but, so far, 17 countries have. I believe that the hon. Gentleman also said that $1 billion of debt had been written off, but in fact $2 billion has been written off.

Mr. Meacher: About £500 million quid.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Oldham, West was kind enough to congratulate the Prime Minister, and I am grateful to receive the compliment on my right hon. Friend's behalf. I should like to go further, because without a shadow of doubt Britain has led the way in promoting international agreement on debt relief for the poorest developing countries. That debt relief was at the personal initiative of the British Prime Minister and, as a result, $2 billion of debt has been written off. What was significant at Tokyo, however—

Mr. Worthington: What about commercial debt?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall come on to that, but give me a chance. I shall not shirk the questions that I have been asked, but, as always in such debates, there is an awful lot of chuntering coming from those on the Opposition Front Bench. I am hardly being given a chance to answer the questions that I am asked.
We have long argued that more needed to be done and we are therefore delighted that the Tokyo summit called on the Paris Club of Government creditors to reconsider the issue. I am especially pleased to note that, for the first time, the possibility of action, case by case, on reducing the stock of debt was raised, again in line with the Prime Minister's original proposal at Trinidad in 1990. The stage is therefore set for building on the consensus of the seven participants at the summit for further concrete proposals within the Paris Club.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has been reasonably patient because I am about to discuss two issues that he raised—net flows and commercial debt. The figures from the OECD—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are always grinning. If only they would get some facts—listen and get some facts.
The figures from the OECD, which are much more comprehensive than those from any other source, for net resource transfers show that developing countries received £31·4 billion more in 1991 than they paid out. That figure confirms the encouraging recovery of recent years in resource transfers to developing countries.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the southern world. I do not know whether he was referring to sub-Saharan Africa or to the more general region. Sub-Saharan Africa is repaying the IMF more than it receives in new money at the moment. The IMF is not withdrawing from Africa, however, because it plays a vital part in catalysing financial flows from elsewhere. It is

anxious to help the countries of sub-Sahara to meet their technical and financial needs. The IMF flows are only a small part of the total aid.
Sub-Saharan Africa has consistently received more than it pays out when aid, foreign direct investment and other sources are included. In 1991 it received £6·95 billion, nearly £7 billion, according to World bank figures.

Mr. Worthington: They cannot be true.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the references so that he can check the figures in the relevant publications. If he does not have a copy of them, they are, of course, in the Library.
Some developing countries, particularly in Latin America, owe a significant proportion of their debt to commercial banks. It is not for our Government, or any other Government, to encourage, much less force, banks to cancel debt. That would deter them from lending to developing countries ever again in the future.
Nevertheless, a tremendous amount of progress has been made multilaterally in reducing those debts. Some 90 per cent. of major debtor nations' bad debt is now covered by a commercial debt relief deal. The hon. Member for Oldham, West will be aware of the Brady plan, for which the United Kingdom has provided its share of finances, which helps debtor countries and banks to reach voluntary agreements on commercial debt reduction.
The International Development Association also helps low-income countries to reach agreements with banks on commercial debt reduction. We are an important contributor to the IDA, which also gives concessional loans and uses IDA reflow to meet debt service obligations on old World bank loans. I am happy to have answered the hon. Gentleman's points in that regard.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, I shall not give way again. I have given way four times in this short debate. Not only Opposition Members but several Conservative Members want to contribute to the debate and I do not see why I should prevent them from doing so.
The summit considered measures to help eastern and central Europe and the former Soviet Union in their transformation from command to market economies. That matter is of great importance for world stability, which is affected by any instability in the former Soviet Union and eastern and central Europe. The summit welcomed Russia's renewed commitment to economic reform, which has made possible a $1·5 billion drawing facility from the IMF's new arrangement, called the Systemic Transformation Facility. A new programme worth $3 billion to promote privatisation and restructuring was also put in place.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who takes an interest in population, is in the Chamber, I register the importance of population. It should be registered on every occasion, but not dwelt on as I have already debated it with him. That issue was raised in Tokyo and I am pleased that the importance of helping developing countries to deal with the problems of population growth was recognised. The international conference on population and development taking place in Cairo next year will provide an opportunity to address those issues again.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West made much of the need to help the poorest in the world and I appreciate his concern. In our efforts to promote development, the poorest have been the focus of our attention. Action on trade and debt is essential for developing countries' prospects but many of them, especially the poorest and most vulnerable, will continue to need access to concessional finance for the foreseeable future.
Our aid is part of an overall international effort and has helped to bring about progress—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West must look at the facts, not simply assert what he wishes or believes to be true. No one wants to be complacent about the matter, but let us get some facts clear. In the past 25 years, many developing countries such as Korea, Malaysia and Sri Lanka have seen a substantial rise in their per capita income. We do not give aid to Korea or Malaysia, but the aid that we give to Indonesia always irritates the Labour party. Those countries have improved the lot of their people. Life expectancy has risen and adult literacy has increased.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West described the Tokyo summit as an event not of disappointment but of despair, which overlooks the progress that has been made and should be recognised, even though the picture is not completely bright.
The problem of sub-Saharan Africa is a cause for concern. The hopes of many African countries have not been realised, but even there progress has been made with countries such as Botswana, Mauritius and Ghana, which reap the benefits of the right policies. I am pleased that Africa's problems were fully recognised at the summit. We now look ahead to the international conference on African development taking place in Tokyo in October, which will consider the problems and solutions in more detail. Africa is a priority in our aid programme and nearly 50 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes there.
It is important that developing countries should have the right policies to combine with the liberalisation of trade and the aid that we give them. To be effective, aid must be properly targeted and used in the right context, which means that developing countries must get their policies right. Those policies must support economic growth, encourage enterprise and allow their citizens to play a full part in economic and political life. That is why the focus of UNCED in Rio last year, on a national commitment to sustainable development, was so important.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West mentioned the problem of commodity prices. Of course a problem exists in commodity prices, but I support the Government's opposition to commodity price support stabilisation measures, which set artificially high prices, or in other cases distort market trends. There is no easy solution to commodity prices in developing countries, but the solution must remain diversification and not continued over-reliance on volatile commodities.
The effectiveness of our aid programme has been widely recognised, even if the hon. Member for Oldham, West is not prepared to give it that credit. Elements of quality include its focus on the poorest: 80 per cent. of bilateral aid goes to countries with per capita incomes of less than $700

a year—[Interruption.] I cannot take sedentary interventions the whole time. I have responded to many of them—

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, I cannot allow any more interventions. I have given way four or five times and I shall not do so again.
Our programme is highly concessional. All new aid to the poorest is on grant terms, which avoids adding to their debt burden. We have the most rigorous criteria—economic, technical and environmental—to ensure the quality of the programmes and projects that we support. Our aid is well targeted on areas of key relevance to the central aim of sustainable development, as was recognised at UNCED.
Long-term aid has helped some developing countries to create the right climate for economic growth and investment by providing incentives and support for reforms. Aid cannot do it all, however. It is enormously important to accept the argument that a comprehensive approach to the problems is needed—an argument that was stressed at the summit. A comprehensive approach bringing together trade, debt relief and well-targeted bilateral and multilateral aid is the way to help the developing world.
I was deeply disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I was also deeply disappointed with the terms of his motion. So far as I am aware, the motion was received only very late last night, but it looked as though it had been written long before anyone went to Tokyo. It is remarkable that the objectives that the motion complains were not achieved in Tokyo were in fact achieved in Tokyo.

Mr. Meacher: Such as?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will tell the hon. Gentleman. As I said, the economic summit is not a decision-making organisation, but the Prime Minister secured agreement on the call to the Paris Club to reconsider introducing improved debt reduction terms for those countries in greatest need. The hon. Member for Oldham, West states in his motion that the G7 summit failed
to agree any new significant programme of debt relief".
He is wrong. He goes on to state that the G7 summit failed
to ensure any adequate place for developing countries in future world trading patterns via the GATT Uruguay Round".
Developing countries stand to gain from increased and fairer flows of trade, which will result from the Uruguay round. The hon. Member further states that the Government should
prepare a new British and international initiative for debt write-off for the poorest countries".
We have no need for new initiatives as we have the Trinidad terms—the initiative launched by the Prime Minister. The rest of the world is beginning to accept the arguments that we have deployed over the years for an extension of the Trinidad terms. We are taking the initiative. We have pressed for that initiative. The hon. Member's motion is absurd.

Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Do not spoil my speech. I shall not give way as I have given way to the hon. Member several times.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government should take the lead in setting out a trading framework which will ensure that developing countries can play a full part in the world trading system. The key to achieving that aim is to pursue with vigour the chance to conclude the GATT process and to increase the trade of the poor world by $90 billion per year.
The British Government have pushed for some time for the phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement, and the incorporation of trade in textiles into the general agreement on tariffs and trade as part of the Uruguay round. That will improve developing countries' access to our textile markets.
I urge the House to consider those matters. It should consider the context of the aid in the correct dimension of a wider context which contains all the factors involved, and reject the motion.

8 pm

Sir David Steel: I shall start by confessing to the House that during my long time here I have never discovered how to be in two places at once. I have an engagement which will prevent me from listening to the entire debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has kindly offered to do so. Therefore, I owe the House the courtesy of being brief. I shall deal with the issues of aid, trade and debt in that order.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is one of the most exasperating Ministers to follow in any debate. I have listened for 38 minutes to a speech which had, at the most, 18 minutes' worth of content. The Minister is so nice that he keeps interrupting himself—the asides and diversions prolonged his speech. He asked Opposition Members to stop asking questions, to stop chuntering and to stop grinning. He stopped short of asking them to stop breathing. Everything that the Opposition did appeared to prolong the speech. The Minister's most revealing aside was when he confided in us that he agreed with Government policy. That fact is worth highlighting in yellow in Hansard.
There was an exchange of statistics on aid and, as so often happens in this place when the Government and the Opposition exchange statistics, both were correct, but they were trading different ones. Sadly, in 1992 our official development assistance fell from 0·32 per cent. to 0·31 per cent. of gross domestic product. We moved away from the United Nations target, instead of moving towards half the United Nations target. That fact is incontrovertible.
As the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, since 1991 our overseas development aid budget relay assistance budget has fallen by 4 per cent. The Minister countered that by saying that the budget for 1993–94 shows an increase of 1 per cent., which is splendid, and if we add the two together there is a net decrease of 3 per cent. He asked the Opposition if they would at least agree on the basic figure. Even my elemental arithmetic allows me to work out that one plus minus four equals minus three. The Minister produced a figure for 1987.
The Government's record on overseas aid since they came to power in 1979 has been lamentable and the fault

for that lies with the previous Prime Minister. It has to be said in favour of the present Prime Minister that he has changed the record so that it is no longer totally disgraceful, but rather poor. That is all that can be said about it.
I am glad that the Minister for Trade is present and is to sum up the debate—I shall be back to hear what he has to say. I want to ask him a specific question on the future aid budget. It is a question raised by the House of Lords in the report published last month by the Select Committee on European Communities. We are committed to an increase in the European Community's aid programme. The Lords report makes interesting reading as it commends the European Community's aid programme. On page 22, paragraph (b), it states:
We are concerned about the potential serious effect on the United Kingdom's own bilateral programme because of the decision to increase EC aid without knowing whether there will be a corresponding increase in the ODA budget which finances both our share of the EC's programme and also our own bilateral programme. There is a risk of an unacceptable squeeze on our bilateral programme.
I hope that we can be told what the effect will be of our commitment to join in the share of the increased EC budget as well as enduring the current public expenditure squeeze on our budget.
It remains my party's firm view that we should not just make a general commitment—as the Government have—to the United Nations target on overseas aid without setting a date, but have a specific programme. No political party, even one which has been out of power as long as mine, can promise to do that tomorrow, but we should have a committed programme over a full Parliament to reach the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent., which is attainable and reasonable and should be met.
Two propositions were made, one by the Government and one by the Opposition, on which no agreement was reached across the Floor of the House. As the Minister said, there is no doubt that the developing world as a whole will benefit from increased liberalisation of trade. However, it is equally true, as one or two Opposition Members said, that the very poorest countries do not stand to benefit. Both propositions are correct. We are entitled to ask the Government what approach they take to future GATT talks—that is a direct question for the Minister for Trade. It seems that the GATT will not tackle the commodity crisis. The poorest countries naturally have to rely heavily for income on their own primary products, but the price of those products has been falling—it fell 30 per cent. in the 1980s.
The EC tariff on cocoa beans is 3 per cent., but if the beans are processed into cocoa butter in the country of origin the duty is 12 per cent. If they are further processed into chocolate it rises to 16 per cent. Such a policy discriminates against the economic development of primary products in the developing world. We are entitled to ask what the Government will do about such issues in future trade negotiations because such policies operate against countries that have few resources other than primary products that they wish to develop.
The Government must pay special attention to the commodity problem. They should consider compensation for the losses that the poorer countries would face under GATT agreements. They must consider some support to enable such countries to continue to benefit from some of their current trade preferences.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that GATT trade negotiations are conducted through the Commission. Given the right hon. Gentleman's federalist tendencies, I am sure that he is happy for that to remain the case. There is a limit to what the Government can do, but we shall take account of the commodity issue and press for a solution.

Sir David Steel: If that is a form of commitment, I welcome it. Of course, the decisions are made by the Community as a whole. I said that we are entitled to ask what the Government are doing in the Community to have those policies changed. Inasmuch as my party has any influence with Ministers and similar parties elsewhere, I assure the Minister that we shall press exactly the same issues. We do not speak with two voices on this matter.
Debt is the most serious of the three issues facing the developing world. I accept that the G7 leaders had a healthy debate on the debt burden, especially that of Africa, but the figures given by the hon. Member for Oldham, West are correct and show the huge increase in debt in the past half dozen years. Although my figure on Zambia's debt is different from that of the hon. Gentleman, it shows that every man, woman and child in that country owes more than twice the national income. That is intolerable.
The fact that some of us were a bit disappointed by what happened in Tokyo is illustrated by the text that I read in the Library of the detailed communique and the Prime Minister's statement. I shall contrast what he said about the aid to Russia with what he said about aid to the poorest countries. He said that the Group of Seven had put together an unprecedented set of measures to help Russia. He went on:
We set out a programme worth some $3 billion to help privatisation and restructuring.
I am not in any way against those firm and specific proposals. However, later in the statement when the Prime Minister dealt with debt reduction, he said
I secured agreement that improved debt reduction terms should be considered for the poorest and most indebted countries. I hope this will carry implementation of the Trinidad terms further.
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the hon. Member for Oldham, West and I went to see the Prime Minister before he left for Tokyo. Therefore, I am aware of that hope. However, the G7 summit did not produce the firm commitment to relieve debt in the poorest countries that it produced on the issue of aid to Russia.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman gives us credit for trying. Success will be achieved by taking consensus forward. The alternative might be to have some sort of unilateral concession by the United Kingdom on some debt, but that would be nothing like as effective for the poor world as one that had the agreement of the other parties to the Paris Club.

Sir David Steel: When the Minister reads Hansard he will see that I thanked the Prime Minister for his efforts. We should not get carried away simply because G7 countries are considering the matter. As democratic politicians we are entitled to press for more specific action. The Minister tempts me to digress a little.
In the House and privately to us, the Prime Minister said that the Japanese Government, who are one of the

major players, are philosophically reluctant to engage in debt write-off. I raised that with a Japanese Government representative a few days ago. He said that that was true, but that they would compensate for that by greatly increasing grants to the developing world so that it could pay off debt. I do not know the scale of that, but if the Japanese Government are pursuing that policy, at least they are not proving an obstacle to greater agreement among the G7 countries on the debt question.
Pressure on the commercial banks should not be passed over as lightly as the Minister did. If my memory serves me right, there was a measure in last year's Finance Bill to help the banks to write off debt. I am not a Treasury expert and someone from the Treasury would be needed to speak about that. Moreover, many commercial banks have made provision in their accounts for writing off debt but have not written it off. Surely the Government should have a word with the commercial banks to persuade them to do more on this issue.
Secondly, what is the Government's strategy towards the multilateral agencies on debt? The IMF and World bank meeting will be held in September. What stance will the Government take at that meeting to try to get the agencies to do more? As we have heard, the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting and the international conference on African debt will be held in October. All those meetings are scheduled to be held shortly and there is scope for the Government to continue to take a high profile on debt relief. Yes, we shall thank them for trying, but we shall thank them even more when they succeed.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his achievements at the G7 summit in Tokyo. He has returned from all three recent summit meetings—in Copenhagen, Edinburgh and Tokyo—with the consistent message that he wishes to see measures that will encourage economic development in the industrial world and in the third world.
At the Tokyo summit, there was major progress on debt, on the GATT talks and on world trade and unemployment. Those are the problems that will beset the world and we must try to deal with them in the third world, Russia, Asia, Europe and the Americas. The theme of the Prime Minister's message to the House on Monday was that he believed that more trade produced more jobs and that economic development was the way to deal with debt issues and the alleviation of poverty, to which we are all devoted.
One of the major issues in economic development in Africa and the third world is debt. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) rightly said that African debt is largely to the international financial institutions and not to the commercial banks or to Governments.
Therefore, the debt problem in Africa, and especially in Zambia about which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was concerned, is a matter for the international financial institutions. To clear that debt, we must consider complete debt forgiveness. In that context, the Japanese example is important, but without debt forgiveness interest continues to mount. Debt forgiveness is needed from the Japanese and I am afraid that we shall


have to press them still further, because just giving grants to repay debt will not be sufficient to pay the capital let alone the interest that has accrued on much African debt. That is especially true of the highly indebted Zambia.
Therefore, there has to be bilateral action by the member states of the G7 and others to write off debt in the Trinidad terms to which every hon. Member has referred. It was pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and he has continued to press it throughout all the international conferences he has attended.
We have to take further initiatives and consider all the debts in each country—private debts, commercial debts, trading debts and debts to international financial institutions—make an overall settlement with each country and arrange for repayments to be made over an extended period. Some 35 years or more may be necessary for those countries to be able to afford to repay the debts on a controlled basis without taking too much of their export earnings or their gross domestic product which in some countries in Africa is entirely hypothecated to the repayment of debt.
Considerable progress has been made in debt repayment. One can point immediately to Mexico which was one of the major indebted countries when we were considering these matters in the early 1980s and when the Brady plan came into existence. A great deal of effort has gone into Mexico, and Mexican debt has now been stabilised. We are seeing inward investment into Mexico and the stopping of capital flight from Mexico which is becoming a focus for inward investment. That represents a great international success in dealing with debt worldwide. The same story applies to many countries in South America.
The international community, with Britain playing a leading role, has had considerable success which we should not underestimate or denigrate. However, we have to go further; it is never enough—but that always applies to all aid issues.
Our own aid budget, of course, is not, and never will be, enough to deal with all the problems, but I should like to make one or two suggestions. Our aid programme now, which is of high quality, is probably stretched too tightly over too many objectives to become as purposeful and effective as we should like.
The objectives for overseas aid in Command Paper 2202, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's departmental report, list a whole set of aims, which include
the adoption of economic policies that reduce price
distortions and rely more on the market; encouragement of the private sector as a source of wealth creation; investment in economic and social infrastructure; improvements in women's status; higher standards in political systems, public administration and the legal sector; projects and programmes which have a positive impact on the lives of the poorest people; and investment and planning to help protect the economy from natural disasters.
That is not a full summary of what the Overseas Development Adminstration does, but it is a considerable programme to try to implement in any country, particularly in the large number of countries to which our aid budget is devoted.
I do not believe that we should cut out aid to any particular country except those with a hostile economic and governmental structure which makes economic development impossible. To use President Reagan's expression, we must concentrate more on developing

measures by which we can give people in these countries the means to cure their economic problems. We should give them more of the fishing rod and less of the fish.
For example, we must reduce our concentration on health matters, education matters and technical assistance, which involves sending executives and civil servants to help with administration or central banking functions. We have to reduce those activities and concentrate more on economic development and encouraging those countries to adopt economic policies and introduce Government measures to encourage economic development. That means that we have to encourage the private sector to develop in those countries and help them to take out public sector mismanagement. For example, appalling waste can be seen in many of the Zambian parastatals which are inefficient and corrupt. We need to take them out of that inefficient management and help them get back into prosperous and efficient operations in the private sector.
The Overseas Development Administration is to be congratulated as it has started to develop some of its programme towards that end, but it must be taken very much further forward. One of the ways in which the Overseas Development Administration is immensely successful is through the Commonwealth Development Corporation and I shall say a few words about the problems that now face that corporation which I had the honour to serve in a junior capacity before I entered the House.
At present, as a result of the public expenditure survey settlement, the corporation has been left without access to the aid programme's budget and therefore to low-interest loans. If that programme continues, the Commonwealth Development Corporation will have to come out of the very places that we need to support, such as Africa. Those countries are the most difficult places in which to get economic development started. It will become exceedingly difficult for the CDC to invest in those countries, repay the loans with interest to the Government and pay tax on those loans, which are its current terms of reference and method of operation.
If, on the other hand, the Government renew their support for the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the CDC can get beneath Government level, into the wealth-creating sectors of the economy and invest in profitable operations, including, of course, those producing commodities.
We have heard about the problem of prices. We have to recognise that GATT is a very important issue for the third world countries and begin to address the problem of low and falling commodity prices which have created many problems in the third world over the past decade.
If we begin to eliminate agricultural surpluses by the elimination of subsidy in our over-subsidised northern agriculture arenas in commodities such as sugar, we will stop exporting to the world markets. The European Community exports more than 3 million tonnes of sugar to world markets with what effect? Of course, it reduces the world price of sugar and third world countries are exporting their sugar at world prices.
If we stop subsidised sugar and other commodities coming on to the world market, we will raise the prices that third world countries get for their commodities and begin the process of enriching those countries and enabling them to buy products from our countries, thus benefiting from world trade. That would benefit third world countries and enable them to help themselves. Quite frankly, that is the


only way in which those countries will begin to be able to repay debt and improve their standards of living. I am forced to conclude that we must concentrate on third world countries' wealth-creating sectors, support them through aid, and reduce or write off their debts—or at least make them capable of repaying them, so that further investment by private banks and international financial institutions is not inhibited.
Those institutions have a problem in Africa, and I hope that my hon. Friends will ensure that it is raised at the World bank meeting in September. I am concerned particularly about repaying international financial institu-tion debt without reducing the inward flow of moneys from those institutions and investment in the economic cycle of which I have spoken.
Further progress has been made in finding a way in which the world economy can begin to work to the benefit of countries in not only the north—which we desperately need, if we are to be able to employ more people—but the third world. Only a beneficial relationship between the two will bring success in addressing world poverty problems.

Mr. Mike Watson: I did not intend to refer specifically to aid agencies—which are always helpful in providing up-to-date information on their activities and advice for the purposes of such debates. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs reacted like a wounded animal to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on the success or otherwise of the Tokyo summit, and the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) also seems to think that the summit was a success and that the G7 ought to be congratulated.
I will quote briefly from comments by professional agencies in the field which put aid programmes into effect, and which have regular contact with many of the countries in question. ActionAid stated:
The tariff cuts agreed at the summit last week are unlikely to provide many benefits for developing countries. It is disappointing that the failure to include tariffs on agricultural products may postpone agreement at the GATT talks on areas (such as agriculture) essential for the future of developing countries.
Christian Aid commented:
The G7 Tokyo Summit Economic Declaration…does little to promote debt relief for the Third World; it merely reaffirms the status quo.
Oxfam stated:
Following the failure of the G7 meeting yet again to address the problem of debt, HMG must redouble its efforts to get the issue firmly on the international agenda.
Those comments counter the claims made by the Minister and Conservative Members in tonight's debate. I know which side I am on in reaching my conclusions.
I am in no doubt that, not for the first time, the G7 summit promised little and delivered even less to the developing world. The declaration does little more than maintain the status quo, while the Prime Minister's performance did not enhance his poor aid record, or that of this country over the past decade.
In 1989, when the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he told the G7 summit that the Trinidad terms ought to be introduced with a view to easing the third world's crippling debt burden. We sought to support that

initiative, and we continue to do so. I would have preferred a 66 per cent. write-off rather than the 50 per cent. for which the Toronto terms provided.
Four years later, even that modest improvement has not been delivered. That write-off would not itself be sufficient to counter the crippling effects of debt repayment, yet the Prime Minister—despite the fine words of Conservative Members—was unable to deliver even that pledge, far less his new proposal for 80 per cent. write-off.
Only last month, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, addressing the One World Action conference on debt, claimed that Britain would press for improved debt reduction terms for poor and heavily indebted countries.
He said:
for some of them, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, much more needs to be done…We in the UK would like to see the Trinidad terms improve so that they conform more closely to the proposals John Major put forward in Trinidad in 1990.
I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State has left the Chamber, presumably to take his evening meal—although he has every right to do so. I wanted to put to him a question, of which his advisers will no doubt inform him when he returns to reply to the debate.
Where is the evidence that the good intentions espoused by the Prime Minister, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and other Ministers were vigorously pursued at Tokyo? It is no use the Under-Secretary praising the Prime Minister. What did the British initiatives at Tokyo actually produce for the poor?

Mr. Needham: I shall be winding up the debate.

Mr. Watson: Then I hope that the Minister for Trade will answer that question.
The summit at least acknowledged the particular needs of sub-Saharan Africa, but the Under-Secretary of State made no commitment to respond to those needs. One way would be to announce additional assistance from the current public spending round. Without such a commitment, this country's already poor record of aid spending will at best remain at current levels. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West spelt out that the freeze will amount to a 4 per cent. reduction in real terms.ODA funding is already in reverse, at 0·31 per cent. of gross domestic product this year, compared with 0·32 per cent. last year, which is well short of the United Nations figure.
I wholly endorse the view of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). that that should be an achievable target of a Parliament. Labour made a commitment to the United Nations target in its aid proposals at the last general election, and the United Nations figure is clearly endorsed by the Liberal Democrats. If the Government had a clear commitment to aid, they would at least announce a timetable to implement the United Nations target.
How do the Minister and the Government expect us to take them seriously when they are back-peddling and making no real attempts to acknowledge or to deal with the mountain of debt that is weighing down and stunting the growth potential of the third world?
The Minister for Overseas Development, Lady Chalker, constantly talks up her Department's relatively modest aid to countries such as Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan. The briefings that emanate from the ODA refer to


£20 million of food aid here or £20 million of humanitarian assistance there. I do not mean to belittle those valuable efforts, which I commend if they meet their objectives, but they pale into insignificance alongside the crippling debt burden of many African countries.
This ought to be a time of hope for Africa. Things are looking better in terms of developing democracies in a number of countries. Ethiopia, Eritrea and Mozambique—which are populated by some of the world's most vulnerable people—have seen peace established and maintained after decades of armed conflict. However, of necessity, they remain fragile and are seriously under-mined by lack of support from the international community, which allows their debt burden to rise.
Nowhere is the legacy of accumulated debt more threatening than in Ethiopia. It is estimated that its economy shrunk 6 per cent. last year, and that it will need to find £1 billion annually over the next three years just to cover debt service payments. It is surely important that such a sum should be used to develop Ethiopia's economy, feed its people in the short term, and ensure that it can sustain itself in the long term. That is more important than servicing debts which, no matter how much is repaid, seem to grow ever larger.
From the threadbare section on aid that emerged from the Tokyo declaration, it is clear that the world's richest nations failed to grasp the fundamental point. That statement was vague and complacent:
We will continue to strengthen our support for their self-help efforts based on the principles of good governance. We will also encourage them"—
the developing countries, that is—
to follow sound and open economic policies to create a solid base for sustainable economic growth.
"Encourage" is the key word. Many of the countries concerned have been effectively strangled by structural adjustment programmes, mainly through the World bank.
The declaration continues:
we will make all efforts"—
there is nothing more precise than that—
to enhance development assistance in order to respond to ongoing needs as well as new requirements.
Although the Prime Minister and the other G7 leaders may have achieved some successes, I venture to suggest that tackling the issues of aid, trade and debt in the developing world was not one of them.
The massive wave of debt repayment that washes over the poorest countries every year hits Africa hardest. Between 1985 and 1992, the continent repaid more than £80 billion in servicing its debt, diverting Government spending from desperate social need and choking at birth any real chance of recovery. To concentrate on Africa—in which I have taken a particular interest—is not to ignore the need to assist other developing countries; I accept that need exists much further afield. It merely reflects the priorities at a time of scarce economic resources throughout the world.
Of course, everything is relative. In Latin America, external debt amounts to an average of 37 per cent. of gross domestic product; in the United Kingdom, the figure is about 6 per cent. In Africa, the average exceeds 100 per cent., and is much higher than that in many of the poorest nations. Zambia has already been mentioned.
The stark fact that must be spelt out repeatedly until it is both grasped and acted on is that sub-Saharan Africa owes more than it earns, and cannot hope to repay that debt in the foreseeable future. The only way in which those

countries can be enabled to recover and build up their economies is the writing off of debt. The sole question should be what percentage is written off.
It could be argued that the write-off should be total, although in the past the Government have argued that full write-offs encourage debtor countries to ignore their repayment requirements. That is all very well, but to apply such a stricture to the poorest countries while applying different criteria to assistance to Russia—or the writing off of most of what Egypt and Poland owed—is to employ double standards that invite cynicism when issuing from the mouths that call for the implementation of the Trinidad terms while failing to deliver.
That tendency to cyncism is hardly diminished when we consider the performance of British banks in regard to third world lending. Most shy away from Africa, concentrating instead on Latin America—but not Lloyds and the Midland, which have done very well out of the debt built up by the developing world. Over the past three years, the developing countries have propped up the Midland, subsidising its United Kingdom operations. In 1991, without profits from third world debt, the bank would have recorded a loss of about £50 million rather than a profit of £36 million. Last year, £82 million of its operating income came from developing countries' activities.
Recently, Ben Jackson of the World Development Movement said:
It is unacceptable for the banks to enjoy tax holidays at the expense of British taxpayers without passing a penny of that relief onto the world's poor and then, when it suits them, to write those debts back into their accounts".
For the Midland, third world debt has turned into a nice little money earner. Its shareholders may be satisfied, but the world's poor certainly are not. Debt repayments continue to flood out of the third world. I invite the Minister to condemn the banks' self-seeking approach, and to endeavour to close any loopholes that permit such an approach.
There are two main reasons why the world's poorest countries should have been offered a major programme of assistance last week. First, they have generally done their best to repay their debts, but have simply been unable to do so. For instance, 10 years ago, the total external third world debt amounted to about £550 billion; in the intervening decade, debtor countries have paid back nearly £1,000 billion more, but they now owe £1,100 billion. They are not merely running fast to stand still; they are being propelled backwards at a rate of knots. That cannot be allowed to continue.
Secondly, the crisis is not of the debtor countries' own making. I do not deny that there are examples of economic mismanagement, largely because Governments are running economies for the first time; but a cocktail of plummeting commodity prices and soaring interest rates has caused Africa's debt burden to spiral out of all control. As a result of the diversion of scarce resources, Africa now spends four times as much on debt repayments as it spends on health care. The House has already debated the dreadful health problems on that continent.
I agree with the Minister about the need to use trade as a means of assisting such countries. Certainly, there is far more to be gained from trading with them than from simply doling out aid. Trade links provide a potential lifeline for developing countries. I think the Minister said that trade with the developing world amounted to three


times the value of aid; I believe that the figure is higher, but I will not quibble. The point is that most developing countries rely on a small number of primary commodities. The World bank's commodity price index has plummeted by some 30 per cent., with all-too-predictable results for the poorest countries.
As has been pointed out, the tariff cuts agreed at last week's summit are unlikely to provide many benefits for developing countries. None of the aid agencies considers that anything meaningful has emerged from Tokyo. It was a lost opportunity for the G7 nations. Of course we in the developed world have our own problems, but it is simply not good enough to pass up the opportunity to help the developing countries, instead producing a few bland paragraphs in a subsequent announcement.
Oxfam is one of the aid agencies that called for full implementation of the Trinidad terms. It was supported by a recently formed all-party parliamentary group called Africa Caucus, whose members include the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—who was present earlier—and myself. We urged the G7 leaders to give serious consideration to debt write-off at the summit: it would allow developing countries to gain the breathing space necessary to enable their economies to recover and begin the inevitably slow climb towards sustainable recovery.
Although that approach proved ineffective, Africa Caucus will continue to campaign for at least a year to highlight the serious plight of African countries, and to seek the support of the developed nations.
ActionAid, not being content with dwelling on the past, has targeted the future, referring to the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank in the autumn and the international conference on African development which will take place in October. Although the declaration refers to that, and also to the population conference to be held in Cairo in 1994, it does not suggest a link between those events to help the poor. As things stand, they will prove no more significant than the Tokyo summit—perhaps even less significant.
The Government must play a much more vigorous role in ensuring that the plight of the debt-burdened nations is treated seriously at such fora, and that that consideration is translated into meaningful action. So far, that has not happened.
If both the Ministers present today—and the Prime Minister—expect to be taken seriously in regard to aid, trade and debt, I suggest that they make firm commitments. First, although it stresses the need to alleviate poverty, the ODA does not measure the amount that it spends for that purpose; it is impossible to obtain a figure showing the effects of that spending. I understand that no benchmarks are available to assess the ODA's performance. That gap ought to be filled. I ask the Minister to make attempts to get the ODA quickly to introduce indicators and benchmarks so that its record can be evaluated.
I mentioned earlier that the Government should also revoke the decision to freeze between now and 1996 the official aid figure that has already been announced. I referred to the effect that that will have. It amounts to de facto cuts, which represent a further betrayal of the

developing world. Those cuts should not be forced on them after the empty hand that was shown to them at Tokyo.
The Minister should also commit additional assistance from the current public spending round to the poorest nations. Apart from increasing the assistance given to them, it might also act as an incentive to Britain's G7 partners, who are clearly in need of, shall we say, a vigorous prod in that direction. If that is not done, nothing will change.
Can the Minister assure us that the British Government will match their good intentions with tangible evidence of their determination to bring about the implementation of the Trinidad terms? They are taken along to the G7 and other summits, but nothing really meaningful seems to emerge. If the Government do not do that, I fear that, for the world's poor, it will be a case yet again—and I am sick and tired of this—of jam tomorrow. Many of those people do not have the ability to get the bread on which any jam, whatever form it might take, could be spread at any future time. It is time to act. We really must provide something more tangible than what was produced at last week's G7 summit.

Mr. Jim Lester: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), whose views and expertise we recognise. However, the motion on the Order Paper amounts to shadow boxing by the shadow Cabinet. Most people realised that this G7 summit was perhaps the least fortuitous for a long time. The world is faced with many economic problems. The Japanese in particular were in difficulties, due to their elections. It was wrong to imagine, therefore, that one could go along to the G7 and find that people were prepared to find a way of resolving the problems faced by developing countries.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central said, we saw the Prime Minister before he went to the G7 summit. His commitment is as strong as it was when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. His recognition of the debt problem is still as complete as it was when he made those voluntary moves. He did not make them for any other reason than his own interest in the subject and his commitment to it. I suspect that if it were not for the Prime Minister, this issue would not have been raised at the G7 summit, that it would not have featured in the communiqué and that there would have been no commitment to follow it up.
Furthermore, no one should underestimate the views of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was also in Tokyo and with whom I have had the opportunity to discuss briefly what happened. His commitment to international order equals that of the Prime Minister. I am sure that at future international meetings the Chancellor of the Exchequer will use his influence to cajole, persuade or, dare I say it, bully other nations which do not hold the same view about some of the poorest parts of the world, or about debt that can never be repaid.
The right hon.Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) referred to the fact that the Japanese do not believe in forging debt. My research work in Tanzania showed me that when that country borrowed money from the Intenational Monetary Fund about 15 years ago it borrowed a basket of currencies, most of which consisted of Japanese yen. Tanzania borrowed that money at a time when interest rates were low. Nobody told


Tanzania that 10 years later, when it would have to repay the debt, it would be obliged to go on to the world market and buy yen when the interest rate was something like 350 per cent.
No one should doubt, either, the commitment of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Overseas Development to finding a solution to the problems that we are debating. They have shown consistent concern and they have immense practical experience of those problems. They understand the need to provide high levels of support through a combination of debt relief, better trade terms and multilateral and bilateral aid programmes.
Many of the G7 countries are concerned about the overall gap in aid levels, which continues to widen. More and more countries, under economic pressure, are reducing and redirecting their aid programmes—for example, Canada, the United States and Sweden—at a time when the needs of sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world have never been greater. We should be concerned about the whole international aid effort and the way in which it is moving against the incredible demands for aid, in particular from sub-Saharan Africa.
I am sure that all hon. Members who are now in the Chamber have signed my early-day motion 2099, which calls on Her Majesty's Government to find an extra £100 million for sub-Saharan Africa. I think that 124 hon. Members have already signed it. This country has particular knowledge of Africa. If we are not to the fore in arguing the case for Africa, no one else will. We must encourage the positive changes that we see taking place in southern Africa, Mozambique and Ethiopia.
Those of us who take a close interest in Africa, however, are always worried about Africa taking three steps forward and three steps back. Recent events in Angola, Nigeria and Zaire are very unwelcome. It is nevertheless in the long-term interests of those countries to know that the support of this country and of this Administration, and, I hope, more encouraging support from the Opposition than has been shown hitherto, is one way to get the richer nations of the world to recognise their plight.
I recognise how committed the non-governmental organisations are to finding the solution to these problems. It is easy to say that the G7 was a write-off if one does not appreciate how hard the negotiations can be. I have negotiated with NGOs at various international meetings and I cannot say that they are always brilliant when it comes to producing results. When I say that, I have to declare an interest. I am a member of the overseas committee of the Save the Children Fund. I am also on the board of Christian Aid—unpaid, of course.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central referred to Poverty Focus. I was at the conference at which Action Aid initiated Poverty Focus. Those of us who have experience of overseas development find it difficult to be exact about precisely what it is that relieves poverty. I could take hon. Members to a place in Kenya where a road has done more to relieve poverty than any seemingly positive Poverty Focus programme. It led to a large number of villages having access to the market and has lifted the burden of poverty from those places. One would not necessarily say, though, that a road programme was a Poverty Focus issue. One must be careful about trying to define the criteria too closely.
I support the ODA programme, 80 per cent. of which goes to the 50 poorest countries. It is the right one. We

should keep a constant eye on that sort of programme to ensure that it goes a long way to relieving poverty. I am not as convinced as others that one can define a "poverty-related programme"—one cannot say that a programme is poverty related and that is where we should be targeting our bilateral aid.
I have always supported the Government's commit-ment to quality aid. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), I have always argued that it should be more. In the present circumstances, I recognise that the Prime Minister is pursuing the uprating of the debt terms from what are now accepted universally and known as the enhanced Toronto terms to get to the original Trinidad terms. That would be a major step forward. I do not understand why we should go beyond the Trinidad terms in terms of international acceptance until we have the Trinidad terms. That is what the Prime Minister is pushing for and it is the direction in which we should be going.
I shall raise some concerns that are important in terms of examining the way in which aid programmes are developing. One of those concerns is the incredible pressure that the state of the world is putting on emergency relief. I am sure that not everyone recognises that emergency relief in the ODA budget has increased five-fold since 1987—it was £34 million in 1987 and is £171 million in 1992–93.
Many of us recognise that that is essential humanitarian aid. It repairs damage caused by civil wars and breakdowns in society. It is for refugees, food and immediate relief of disaster situations. If we look at what that money could do and if we look at some of the people who are causing the problems for others in their countries, there is a significant increase in development and sustainable aid if that is where it should be targeted.
I recognise that ODA has a special reputation for disaster relief. It has done that successfully for as long as I have been in the House—it goes back further than 1987 when we had the original famines in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. We should draw more attention to the fact that the money is being diverted from sustainable developmental aid. It is not being wasted, because it is essential to protect human life, but it is being used for the opposite to what the ODA programme should be about. It is the opposite to what we believe long-term sustainable development and the money that we vote for that head should be used for.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I share the hon. Gentleman's view entirely. When there is a disaster at home, we find money from a contingency fund which we do not otherwise call on and which is not under that budget head for the year. Does he agree that the money that has often been diverted for international relief operations, which comes out of the ODA budget pocket, should be regarded as a separate head, a contingency, when we come to the rescue of fellow human beings in the world? If we did that, the ODA budget could be geared to and directed at the sustainable, long-term progressive work for which the hon. Gentleman is arguing.

Mr. Lester: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is greatly to the credit of the Prime Minister that, for the first time, the Government's contingency fund has been used to restore to ODA money that has been used for humanitarian relief. It was not true of the previous Prime


Minister, but it is certainly true of this one. I know that that recommendation will be supported by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is currently drafting a report on the expenditure of the Foreign Office and the ODA.
Another pressure on the ODA budget that we should understand is the proportion of multilateral aid that is taken for peacekeeping and the proportion that goes to the European Development Fund. Like the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, I support that principle. It has always seemed to be absolutely right that the strength of the European Community can do far more for developmental assistance than individual countries picking off a little bit here and a little bit there, however important that is.
As we see an increasing proportion of our aid budget going through multilateral agencies and the European Development Fund, we need a keen evaluation of the schemes that are taken at that level. We must take seriously the fact that that is where our aid programme is increasingly being used. We should be ensuring that everything that we do through those multilateral agencies is every bit as good as the bilateral programmes for which we are responsible.
Another concern is the increased assistance to the former Soviet Union. In the case of this Government, that is in addition to the moneys originally voted for overseas assistance. That is not true of many other countries in the European Community.
When considering overall percentages of aid, it must be remembered that aid given to the Soviet Union and to central Europe does not appear as overseas development. It comes on top of and is no part of the overseas development assistance, yet it is included under that budget.
The balance between multilateral and bilateral aid is changing fundamentally and it will not be many years before multilateral aid will be greater than our bilateral aid programme. It is therefore important that the Government and all of us who take an interest in such matters should ensure that we first look for quality and effectiveness of those multilateral programmes and, when there is an increase in the ODA budget. that we also ensure that it goes to our bilateral programme to achieve the sustainable development to which we are committed.
The Government—especially the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—must remain acutely conscious of all the concerns that are expressed internationally and nationally and by the NGOs. I am sure that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will follow the progress made at the G7 summit in all the areas about which we are concerned and in all the places where it is most effective—debt, trade and development.

Miss Joan Lestor: I shall begin by agreeing with my namesake, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). He commented on the major crisis among the main aid donors and the reductions in aid given. That does not let this country off the hook. For a long time, we have ranked as one of the lowest main donors of aid. That is a tragedy for the developing countries and the world as a whole.
It is unfortunate that a Minister is not present for such a debate as this—not because I doubt the competence of those who are present, but simply because it downgrades the whole stature and nature of such a debate and rather gives the impression that we regard overseas aid as second class, which of course we do not.
Most of us who have fought elections I have—fought and won more than most—know that one of the biggest meetings held during election campaigns is on aid, development and peace, and is usually organised by the church. There is no question but that the general public want to support more aid, development and trade in the developing world. Surveys have shown that over half the people in the country are prepared to pay higher taxes if it would help to alleviate the poverty and the terrible problems of the third-world countries that they have seen depicted on their television screens.
Even though it is obvious, it needs to be restated that the examples of famine and starvation in developing countries and the pictures of floods and drought that we have all seen are much more to do with wars, with arms sales, and with debt and trade restrictions than with the indigenous problems.
Trade restrictions especially lock countries into a vicious circle of growing and unending misery. For every £1 given in aid, £2 is taken back as interest repayments on debt. The third world loses more through the trade policies of the rich north and war, often sadly fuelled by arms sales—and we seem to be at it again—which robs those countries of the resources they need, robs the children of their future and leaves behind a trail of misery.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe referred in passing to the briefing of other hon. Members by overseas aid agencies. I am not implying that he was disparaging about it, but he certainly questioned it. I do not believe that all the agencies can be wrong in their briefing or on what they have said about the recent summit and about GATT. Indeed, I pay tribute to those agencies, and to all those who work in aid and development. They often work under appalling conditions and some of them lose their lives, as we have recently seen.
Those workers obviously brief hon. Members. They want more aid and are concerned about what is happening. We have to listen to them because, although we may have an opportunity from time to time to go to those countries to see the problems for ourselves, we can never have the breadth of vision, understanding and experience that the people working there have.
Much attention has been paid to the Trinidad terms and to the whole question of trade. Those terms were welcomed by all in the House. I remember writing at the time that I was pleased that the Government had made a move in that direction. However, the matter does not end there. That is where it began, and things should have developed from there and have gone on apace.
The Prime Minister told the world leaders in Rio—no one would disagree—
No one who has come here can plead ignorance. More people than ever before, one billion, live in abject poverty.
In the same year, our aid budget for developing countries was frozen until 1996–97. That is disgraceful for a country that is still as rich as ours is.
One of the big problems which has already been mentioned is debt. That problem enormously undermines the development and growth of third-world countries. The difficulty about debt is that, unless there is a thorough and


fundamental shift from the way in which we look at it and what we do about it, the position of third-world and developing countries will not change very much.
It is estimated that as much as 42 per cent. of the developing world's debt is a result of the deteriorating terms of trade, and that the servicing of that debt accounts for as much as one third of the foreign exports won by African and Latin American countries. The Minister was right to stress the importance of trade, but as long as those countries have to pay off the debt burden at the present level, the benefits of trade are swallowed up and many of them will never be able to repay those debts. That is a tragedy.
One of the comments made by my hon. Friends was challenged by Conservative Members. The Government were right in 1991 to switch aid so that 81 per cent. of United Kingdom bilateral aid went to the poorest 50 countries, after a great deal of pressure from many agencies and others. Yet focusing on poor countries does not go hand in hand with targeting the poorest communities.
The United Nations Children's Fund has pointed out that just 9·1 per cent. of bilateral aid was spent on basic needs in 1989. I welcome the shift to the poorest countries, but I believe that we must have a means of monitoring where the aid goes and its effectiveness if we are to reach the world's poorest people. Sadly, we are not reaching them.
We all agree that trade is vital, but I do not think that we can say that, because we have cut aid, we can now go to trade as an alternative. Debt, trade and aid all hang together. Trade produces six times more income for poor countries than aid does. We all want to reach a position where aid is not necessary because trade is doing the trick for developing countries.
Sadly, since the early 1970s, the prices paid for developing countries' primary exports have declined by more than 20 per cent., which is a tremendous decline. Over the past two decades, the share of trade of sub-Saharan Africa, about which we are all concerned, has shrunk by almost three quarters to a mere 1 per cent. of world trade. That compares to 19·3 per cent. for developing countries as a whole. Yes, we want to see trade, but we want it to be in a context beneficial to the countries involved.
The tariff cuts agreed at the G7 summit last week are unlikely, as has been said, to provide many benefits for developing countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) said, it is disappointing that the failure to include tariffs on agricultural products may postpone agreement at the GATT talks on such areas, which are vital for the development of many countries.
We all agree that trade is important, and the recent Uruguay round will bring some benefits for developing countries. In agriculture, some protectionism and some subsidies will fall, but the poorest countries are likely to be worse off. They will be unable to take advantage of new market opportunities, yet they will have to open up to foreign competition. They will see the relative value of their current trade preferences being undermined.
Developing service sectors in the third world could be wiped out, and new rules on property will make technology transfer and economic development more difficult. In other words, the poorest countries will be unable to benefit from the good results of many of the recent talks.
GATT will have a very limited impact on the common agricultural policy, which has been mentioned in the House again, and again because it discriminates against third-world products. The dumping of European subsidised agricultural products pulls down world prices, creates instability and wipes out markets for poor farmers. It creates dependence on food imports and develops tastes for goods that people can ill afford. The Trinidad terms were welcome, but what took place at the summit recently did very little for the world's poorest people.
The short and longer-term outlooks for Africa are very bleak. The proportion of debt has increased from the equivalent of 28 per cent. in 1982 to 108 per cent. in 1992. In effect, Britain's bilateral aid and development resources are being diverted back to donor countries through the International Monetary Fund and the World bank in the form of debt repayments. Africa's attempts to extricate itself from that burden are having terrible consequences for the world economy, and are bankrupting low-income families.
Most of Africa faces a debt service to export ratio of more than 30 per cent., and for some it is more than 100 per cent. Debt servicing is leading to investment starvation, the flight of foreign capital, mounting trade deficits and mass unemployment, and is undermining Africa's ability to repay. The continent avoids defaulting on its debt obligations only by continually rescheduling them, which often undermines the very things and services for which the debt was incurred in the first place. That is the tragedy.
The Minister referred to population. Of course population control is important. I support it because it liberalises women, who should have the right to liberalise themselves from one pregnancy after another from the time they are 15 until they are 50. But do not let us kid ourselves that population is the cause of poverty in the third world. When we have our dinner tonight, we shall eat more in one meal than many a village in parts of Africa will have in a week. We should not allow it to be said that the third world is consuming too much of the world's resources. It is not true.
Although population is important from other points of view, I remind all hon. Members that children represent some security for the future. Although population control and family planning can be introduced and should be made available, it will be difficult to persuade people to reduce their families until they are sure that their children will survive and grow up and that they will have some security, and until one deals with the economic problems in developing countries. We consume more in the Tea Room every day than a family in a developing country does in a week, and we should never forget that. The world's resources are very unfairly distributed.
I wonder whether HIV and AIDS in developing countries have been discussed in any depth, but I do not believe that it was appropriate for them to be discussed at the summit, and therefore make no complaint. What is taking place, in Africa particularly, is heart-breaking and worrying, not only because of the AIDS epidemic among adults, but because thousands of children are being born, and will be born, with the HIV virus. They will be orphaned, and what is to become of them?
The Government underestimate the effect of AIDS in this country, and have cut the grant to some charities—but that is another story. At some time, however, the developing nations must consider what is happening to


AIDS in developing and third-world countries and take it seriously. I am pleased that some organisations, backed by the Rockefeller Foundation, have co-operated to develop a programme, working with non-governmental organisa-tions in those countries to give them the benefit of the information that we and others have on HIV in order to tackle that grave and frightening problem.
Anyone who has seen a country in that situation knows that any discussion about third-world development, especially in relation to Africa, cannot go on without taking into consideration what is happening in this respect.
Finally, I was glad to get some information today to show that my friends in the Baby Milk Action Campaign disrupted the annual general meeting of Nestle to point out its disgraceful campaign to persuade mothers in developing countries not to breast-feed their children, but to feed them Nestle products. We used to call it "Nessels" when I was a child, but I believe that it is "Nessleys" these days.
Yes, there has been some progress through the World Health Organisation to stop the advertising. We were all sickened to see healthy, beautiful black women with babies sucking a bottle when those babies should be breast-fed because it is better for babies anyway. I am delighted that my friends disrupted the meeting and tried to get Nestle—it is not the only company, but it is the main one—to explain why it continues to provide and promote its milk products in developing countries. It is an absolute scandal that that should take place.
How can UNICEF and all the organisations that are doing so much to immunise and protect children against disease possibly work against that background? They are trying to persuade mothers to breast-feed because of the protection it gives, yet as a result of advertising, babies are dying. It is estimated that hundreds of babies are dying because they are not being breast-fed, but instead are being put on milk products when there is no clean water, and water and even bottles cannot be sterilised. It is a disgrace, and I hope that all hon. Members condemn it.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on raising this subject today. We cannot separate one item from another. We cannot say that it does not matter so much about aid, that yes, we have cut it, but look what we are doing on trade, and that we have done a little to reduce debt, so let us congratulate ourselves. Congratulation does not come into it. All these items hang together. Unless those of use who are fortunate enough to live in rich countries look at it in that way, one item will be set off against another. I welcome the debate, but I hope that in future we recognise that we are slipping badly in the aid stakes, and that we do something about it.

Mr. Richard Page: I start by expressing my appreciation to the Opposition for choosing this matter for debate this evening. The subject cannot arise too often. I regret the slight slant in the motion. It should not be forgotten that, in the late 1980s, this Government and the noble Lord Lawson, as he now is, led the way on debt repayment. This country wrote off

more than £1 billion-worth of debt and raised the profile of debt write-off with the rest of the industrial world. That should not be forgotten in the House or the country.
I am aware of the time, and the fact that others wish to speak, so my contribution will be much shorter than I should have liked it to be. I welcome the wording of the Government amendment. It puts the truth of the position. It does no harm to see it put firmly on the record that the Government
welcomes the agreements by the G7 countries in Tokyo to consider improved debt reduction terms for the poorest and more indebted countries, including the possibility of earlier action on reducing the stock of debt on a case by case basis in accordance with the Prime Minister's Trinidad Terms initiative.
In the past, this country and others have given money on various repayment terms to countries that have mishandled it. We have wasted our money in trying to help. It has gone to people and into accounts that it should not have got near. I should like to think that today we are much more careful in giving taxpayers' money to help bridge the gap between the industrial world and third-world countries.
Far too often, industrial countries muddle the differentiation between support for home industry and overseas aid. We need a vigorous debate to differentiate between grant support for third-world countries and boosts that are necessary from time to time to help home industry engaged in exporting or in need of some inducement to expand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) spoke most tellingly about the difference between the industrial world and the third world, and the way in which that gap is expanding. In military terms, it is almost like people with bows and arrows trying to compete with those with machine guns. It is the duty of the industrial world to try to ensure that that gap does not become an unreasonable and unacceptable difference.
We have a duty to decide when our help is to be a grant, and when it is to be a loan. We should not muddle that. We should not give loans and then decide that they should be grants. We must make that decision right at the start. We must be far more caring and differentiating about where we give that support, and in that way show an example to other countries. We have heard quotations already this evening about how some of them operate. We must lead the way in the third world countries by giving the money as a grant. We should not expect to get the money back at a later stage.
I should mention again the slight confusion that has emerged over the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It developed substantial funds over the years. It has a capital base of nearly £800 million, and can recycle its surpluses every single year. It does not require net new capital every year to sustain its programme. It should be able to sustain gross new lending of some £200 million a year.
I suggest that it is misleading to give the impression that the Government have somehow cut its support. It will provide new loans in the years to come, and while its lending will not exceed the levels of past loan repayments, it will certainly help us go on into the future.
As a moment of mild chiding, I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), who made various comments about the banks. Some of those written-off debts have come back,


but I suggest that many of our banks have loaned considerable sums of money on an ill-advised basis to the third world and have written off billions of pounds, which is paid for today by many British account holders and taxpayers. Should we dismiss that lightly? The banks are getting some money back, but they have had to bear tremendous pain in writing off ill-advised debts in the past.
Those who have had the forbearance to listen to me in the past on trade and industry will know that I believe that we should help our exporters and our various industrial activities. However, to come back to my original point, we should not muddle the difference between the giving of aid and our support for our exporting and internal industries. If we make that division clearer, we shall benefit the whole world.

Mr. John Battle: It is appropriate that this debate on the G7 summit, on which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), should follow yesterday's debate. Within the past 24 hours we have debated clause 42 of the Finance Bill, which would force through VAT on fuel and thus create real poverty in Britain. What concerns me is that there are real connections to be made between the economic, social and political projects undertaken by the Government here and what is happening throughout the third world as a result of the economic and political policies pursued by the industrial nations.
I refer particularly to the pursuit of economic policies worldwide that have deliberately generated high levels of unemployment, lowered wages levels and undermined collective trade union rights. There has also been the build-up of massive public and private debt, pressure to reduce direct taxation, switches to regressive indirect taxation, drastic reductions in welfare state provision and the privatisation of essential common services.
I do not have much time in which to speak in the debate. However, I once had the privilege of meeting the Economics Minister for Benin, who was invited to go to the Paris Club meeting to renegotiate IMF terms on behalf of his country. He expressed surprise to me that at that meeting people from the western world, people from Britain, should ask why Benin did not do as Britain had done and privatise the water supply. Benin did not have a water supply, so it was a most inappropriate policy. In other words, the free market economic agenda is wrapped up by the IMF and the World bank in the language of structural adjustment, but it is the same ideological model superimposed at home and internationally.
Others have spoken about the needs of Africa and they should be high on our agenda. I shall not repeat what has been said about the needs of Africa, but we need some fresh, new, imaginative strategic thinking. I simply quote the President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, who, at her press conference at the end of her visit to Somalia last October, said:
There needs to be a great deal more urgency about the situation. It is not acceptable that human beings are in the degrading, humiliating situation in which they find themselves, because we really have to stand back and say: 'it diminishes all of us as human beings'. I felt shamed by what I saw. Shamed. Shamed. On behalf of the European world, and the American world, and the developed world generally. What are we doing that we have not got greater conscience for it?

She went on:
Not only Somalis, but also the Horn of Africa in general, need new strategies, need new lateral thinking about our relationship with the continent of Africa. They need not just the United Nations and their international organisations and governments to be engaged, but women's groups, business associations, and others, to have a direct linkage of accepting responsibility.
I reiterate that plea for lateral thinking and for an injection of imagination and urgency.
Recently, a small African country, Eritrea, became independent. There was and still is great international pressure for good governance. But weeks after that country's independence a conference on the programme for the reintegration of refugees and the rehabilitation of the resettlement areas of Eritrea was held in Geneva on 6 July under the auspices of the United Nations. Apart from support for food aid and repatriation, Eritrea received pledges of only $16 million towards the $77 million requested for development.
In other words, if the promising movement towards peace and democracy now being developed in several African countries is to be supported and sustained, the flow of aid for development must be maintained and we must not move in the opposite direction. The British Government have been one of those pushing hardest for good government and democracy and are, accordingly, under a moral obligation to back the pressure with positive development aid.

Mr. Tony Worthington: It is a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). His reference to the words of Mary Robinson reminds us that the fact that I billion people in the world simply do not have the means to exist from day to day diminishes us all.
It is impossible to explain Somalia without remembering who armed that country. It is impossible to explain the problems of Brazil without bearing in mind the demands for tropical hardwoods. It is wrong of us to think that our actions are simply benign. It is wrong for us simply to say that, because the IMF and the World bank were set up with good intentions, they automatically have a good impact now.
During the past year, the idea that has struck me most comes from the writings of Susan George on the debt boomerang. She says that if we do not tackle these problems we may think that we are just casting off part of the world, but it will come back and hit us. It will come back and hit us on the population, the migration, the debt and the drugs fronts. If we do not turn our minds more consistently to the problems of the third world, we shall live to regret it.
What is Britain's record in this area? I want first to consider our aid record. We cannot ignore the most tangible fault, which is that there was a public commitment to 0·7 per cent. of GDP from which we ares retreating year by year. The level is now 0·31 per cent. compared with 0·1 per cent. when Labour was in power. The fact that the Government have the worst growth record of any Government since the war means that the developing world is even worse off. In fact, I suspect that there is a cunning plan by the Government to attain the 0·7 per cent. target by shrinking the economy.
The developing world is threatened even more by the presence of the needy in the east of Europe. It is clear from


the Foreign Secretary's choice of budget that he prefers to increase the contribution to eastern and central Europe and to cut the contribution to the developing world during the next three years. The Foreign Secretary must defend that.
The Government's defence of their aid record is extraordinary—it is that this country's aid is good. Therefore, apparently, the Government are to cut it. I could understand the defence being that they did not want to put good money after bad. But to cut aid because this country does it well is a strange defence indeed. That is especially true as the Government now distribute a higher and higher proportion of aid in a less and less efficient way. A higher proportion goes to the World bank and the IMF.
We have heard much about the damage that is done by the debt policies of those institutions, with more going through the EC. There is widespread concern that directorate-general VIII of the EC under Mr. Marin is less than efficient—even perverse—in its distribution.
Why is more and more of our aid to be deployed in a less and less efficient way? We have heard, if not convincingly, from the Prime Minister that the most vulnerable in this country will be protected from the public expenditure cuts that are on their way. We need to know from the Minister whether the poorest people in the world will be protected, or will they suffer from the dreadful hole which the Government is in?
What else have the Government done in terms of aid and development? They have disappointed many people by their failure to take the lead in many areas. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) reminded us of that. Africa regards this country as the pre-eminent European power, and the people of Africa look to us for guidance, certainly with regard to the World bank and IMF. The British director of that organisation holds enormous power over development policies in Africa. It is in Africa, however, that the World bank and IMF policies have failed the most. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) pointed out that more money comes out of Africa now than is put in.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe valuably pointed out, as he usually does, the amount of money that is spent on emergency relief. The reason for that is that we failed in many cases to take preventive steps early enough by diplomatic initiatives. [Interruption.] Well, I went to Somalia last year and they had plenty of water and plenty of problems. The world was deaf to Somalia for a whole year because our diplomats in Nairobi did not go to Somalia. They were forbidden to go by the Foreign Office.
If we cannot get accurate information, how can we take preventive action? The tragic situation in Somalia today, with the military intervention going wrong, has resulted from our failure to act in time. We failed to encourage the UN to take the necessary diplomatic initiatives, and we must look to the United Kingdom to take the lead in the matter.
As the Minister knows, I am also fearful about the situation in Sudan, where there is a 10-year-old civil war. I compliment the action of the Foreign Office in that case, and also the action by our ambassador in Sudan. But we should take preventive action by taking the issue to the United Nations Security Council. I am pleased that the Minister who has responsibility for foreign trade is to answer the debate, as it gives the House a chance to bring

some of the issues together. He will be able to explain what the poorest of the world have gained or will gain from the G7 and GATT.
There are several major worries. Very painfully, a series of Lomé conventions—we are now up to Lomé 4—negotiated trade concessions for the poorer countries, but there are fears that GATT will wipe them out. I hope that the Minister will tell us that it is this country's objective to stop putting higher tariffs on value added goods from the third world.
Perhaps the Minister will also tell us what GATT will do about the present shameful situation whereby, through the World bank, we demand that developing countries stop subsidising their food, but we then dump subsidised EC food on them, which is what happens with beef in west Africa. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) mentioned the destruction of the sugar cane industry in that way.
If we agree that trade is more important than aid, why, under the British presidency, was an EC development policy produced which did not mention the common agricultural policy or trade policy in general?

Mr. Mike Gapes: Is it not a fact that successive Ministers have, through our aid budget, committed us step by step to EC programmes which lead to long-term reductions in available resources for bilateral programmes? We are being locked in incrementally so that we may not even be able to reverse the process unless there is a drastic change in the near future.

Mr. Worthington: Indeed, and that point has already been made. The reason we are locked in is that our aid is shrinking. It would be possible to increase our contribution to other organisations if we were expanding the overall amount of aid.
It has been generally agreed that debt is a matter of the utmost importance. I, too, compliment the Prime Minister on the Trinidad terms which we agree is a valuable initiative. However, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and confirmed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, 91 per cent. of the debt of sub-Saharan Africa is to the international financial institutions, to the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. What can we do about that, when the constitution of those bodies forbids them to cancel debt? All that they can do is to roll over the debt from year to year. We have to ask what is going to happen to the great burden of debt which is owed to the IMF and the World bank, which now take out far more than they put in.
The World bank and the IMF are in a crisis. What can we do to make their policies more transparent? Why can we not know how our director at the World bank has voted? The Americans can. Why should an unknown civil servant and the International Development Association, which we debated on Monday evening, be allowed to spend £620 million of taxpayers' money without accounting for it? Why can we not know what is being done to increase accountability in the World bank? Why can we not know how the British director is voting on issues concerning where sustainable development is being damaged by World bank projects? What safeguards are being put in place?
The Government must surely learn from the recent scandal surrounding the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It was an organisation


which went out of control, ran amok and became self-serving. How do we know that that is not happening in the World bank or the IMF? The World bank has admitted that an increasing proportion of its projects are failing. What are we going to do to put that right?
Perhaps the Minister will tell us the World bank's philosophy, which we are supporting. It is clear that a struggle is going on in the World bank. I should like to refer to two points that have been made recently. One of them came from Larry Summers, who was previously the chief economist at the World bank—obviously a very influential person. What he said contradicted a point made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. Summers said that investment in the education of girls provides far the best possible economic return through World bank activities.
The ironic thing is that the World bank and the IMF, because of their programmes, are seen as having so substantially damaged the education and health of people in the third world. Are we supporting that, or are we supporting the structural adjustment programmes?
Which side does the Minister take on the question of the struggle within the World bank with regard to debt? Does he take the side of Mr. Edward Jaycox, the vice-president for Africa, who said that the policies of the bank have been
disastrous in terms of building up the capacity of Africa to solve its own problems"?
The bank, he said, had completely failed to build up Africa's trained and skilled manpower and its institutions. The amount going into the salaries of expatriate advisers, of whom there are 100,000 in sub-Saharan Africa, was $4 billion. Do the Government agree with Mr. Jaycox?
What is the World bank policy that the Minister supports? Why cannot we be told what philosophy the Government adopt when they go to the World bank? Debt is by far the most crushing problem facing sub-Saharan Africa.
Unless the Government can give us some optimism about new thinking—lateral or of whatever other type—on how the debt burden on sub-Saharan Africa might be lifted, we will have wasted our words in this Chamber today.

The Minister of Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): I do not intend to go into the debate that took place on Monday night, the report of which I read with great interest. I have a short time to wind up for the Government, but if I am unable to cover particular points that have been raised I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.
As this is an Opposition Supply day, the Government are entitled not only to defend their position but to look into some of the polices behind the Opposition's attitude to the whole question of debt, trade and development. I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) that we have taken the lead on debt relief for the poorest, most heavily indebted countries. I am glad that Opposition Members have given the Prime Minister credit and support for what he has done. We are taking a lead with our targeted aid programme and we have taken the lead on expanding world trade—a matter to which I shall come in a moment. In all these areas, our strategy is the same: to give developing countries as much of a stake as

possible in the world economy. This matter was well referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).
I accept that the debt crisis is not over—not least for many countries in Africa. We recognise this, as did the Tokyo summit. It is clear that there will be further financial assistance to help these countries. However, the Government have a good story to tell about debt relief for the poorest, most heavily indebted countries. We have constantly led the way in promoting international agreement on debt relief—through Toronto terms in 1988, through Trinidad terms in 1991, and now in our push for improved Trinidad terms. As my hon. Friend said, the current terms have so far benefited 17 of the poorest countries, to the tune of nearly $2 billion. I am glad that, on the question of the number of countries, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is getting his arithmetic corrected.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Needham: No. I did not put any question to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to put one to Opposition Members generally.
We are constantly asked about the 0·7 per cent. of GNP contribution to aid. It was referred to today by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). It is the aim of all of us to reach that contribution level, but how do we get to it? It is easy to call for more aid, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West did, but it is much less easy to balance that against calls for more spending on health, education, social services, transport and every other area of public expenditure. The hon. Member for Oldham, West and his hon. Friends must face up to that difficulty.
How does the hon. Member for Oldham, West envisage that that contribution will be made in the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)? He has said that the Labour party is not proposing to raise income tax, national insurance, VAT or current borrowing. How does the hon. Member for Oldham, West square his call for an increased aid budget with the Leader of the Opposition? He has said that the Labour party will oppose the tax increases that are being imposed by the Government. He has also made it clear that the Opposition are not in favour of cuts in public expenditure when public services are in straitened circumstances.
Where is the hon. Member for Oldham, West going to find the extra £2 billion for his aid budget over the course of a Parliament if he intends to follow the advice given by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East and the Leader of the Opposition? As the hon. Gentleman knows, the figures do not add up. However important we may say the aid budget is, the hon. Gentleman cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and pretend to us that his policy is credible.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Uruguay round and the Tokyo summit and how they had failed the developing world. He said that they were a disaster. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged, however, that ActionAid has said that trade produces six times more income for the poor countries than aid. What would the hon. Gentleman have said if the Tokyo summit had failed to reach an agreement on GATT? That would have been a true disaster.
I do not underestimate the importance of the problems of Africa and sub-Saharan Africa, but did the hon. Member for Oldham, West ever mention China? No. Indonesia was mentioned only by one of my hon. Friends. Vietnam, India, Pakistan, the Philippines—some of the poorest countries in the world, which stand to benefit most from improved trade—were never mentioned by Opposition Members.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that, on top of restructuring debt to assist the poorest nations, Great Britain is the first to respond to famine, drought and disease all over the world? Our Hercules are in the air with surplus supplies straightaway. We can be very proud of our overseas aid. We lead the world.

Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend. Wherever disasters occur, British support and British service personnel are there.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) asked whether all tariffs will be abolished under the Uruguay round. He referred specifically to commodities. The hon. Gentleman knows full well, however, that not all tariffs will be abolished through negotiations under the Uruguay round. The important point is that those tariffs will be slashed and that will do a great deal to benefit the poorer countries of the world.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the effect of the GATT round on the developing world. The OECD study for 1992 estimated that the increase in developing countries' annual income from a successful Uruguay round could be more than $90 billion per year. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is more than the total aid budgets of the OECD countries. We do not underestimate the importance of aid, but we agree with the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) that trade is much more important than aid.
The Opposition's policy on that will have exactly the opposite effect to what they intend because, although the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie talks about the need to open markets and ensure that goods from developing countries can be freely traded in this country, a short time later some Opposition Members come to see me, leading delegations of people who want to stop goods coming here from developing countries on the basis of social dumping. I could give the hon. Gentleman a list—I shall not do so tonight—of delegations led by his hon. Friends saying that they do not want goods from China, the Philippines, or the poorer parts of north Africa because it is social dumping. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Worthington: Which of the countries with structural adjustment programmes still have tariff barriers? Apart from the multi-fibre arrangement—eventually—will any EC barriers come down as a consequence of the Tokyo summit?

Mr. Needham: Of course EC barriers will come down as a consequence of the GATT round. They will come down across the whole range. Once we achieve an agreement on GATT, there will be massive tariff reductions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the multi-fibre arrangement. We agree that textiles, as a commodity,

should be phased out. Naturally, that should be done over a reasonable time, but it is one way to remove barriers to developing countries' exports. We would not deny them the opportunities to compete in that sector, which is why the United Kingdom supports the phasing out of textiles as a commodity and better access to our markets.
However, that was not always the view of Opposition Members. I have articles, admittedly from 1985, entitled
Labour's plan to save the textile makers
and
Labour aims to curtail flood of textile imports"—
[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked about the multi-fibre arrangement and I am saying what the Leader of the Opposition's view was on that. The Labour party will find themselves in a muddle when trying to devise a policy to help developing countries because of their economic policy at home.
The Government believe that we must assist companies to invest in the third world. British companies know better than Opposition Members about the benefits of United Kingdom investment in the developing world. Direct investment by United Kingdom companies in the developing world is very large. In 1991, our companies invested £1·4 billion in developing countries, representing some 16 per cent. of foreign direct investment. That is how to create jobs, develop the industrial base, transfer technology and enhance economic capacity.
Opposition Members still prefer to talk about handouts instead of persuading British companies to provide long-term jobs because the effect of the Opposition's economic policy at home is to increase costs and deny developing countries the opportunity to send their products here. Last Monday the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) showed the true colours of his party. He said that we should
reintroduce exchange controls and introduce import controls".—[Official Report, 12 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 681.]
The hon. Member for Oldham, West laughs. He may disown those views, but if Opposition Members stand for the minimum wage and the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty, and then say that they want free trade, what are the consequences for workers in this country? What does that add up to for the workers in this country? What will happen to the workers of the developing world who want to export their goods into a country where such additional add-on costs will put our people out of work? The result will be that ever-larger numbers of delegations of hon. Members will come to my office to try to ensure that the goods stop coming in.
The choice before the House is clear: do we offer developing countries investment, training, technology, jobs and an opportunity to buy and sell in the markets of the world—as the Government believe—or do we follow the Opposition path of minimum wages, minimum hours and maximum trade barriers, which will be the inevitable consequences of their policy?
I urge my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition's contradictory position, reject protectionism, and reject an approach which encourages continued dependency for developing countries. I urge the House to support our policy of enabling developing countries to support themselves through the tools of overseas investment and free trade.

Mr. Don Dixon: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 314.

Division No. 334]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ainger, Nick
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Eastham, Ken


Allen, Graham
Enright, Derek


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Etherington, Bill


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barron, Kevin
Fisher, Mark


Battle, John
Flynn, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foulkes, George


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Fraser, John


Bell, Stuart
Fyfe, Maria


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gapes, Mike


Benton, Joe
Garrett, John


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Berry, Dr. Roger
Gerrard, Neil


Betts, Clive
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Godsiff, Roger


Boateng, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boyce, Jimmy
Gordon, Mildred


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burden, Richard
Gunnell, John


Byers, Stephen
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Hall, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Hanson, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Canavan, Dennis
Henderson, Doug


Cann, Jamie
Heppell, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clapham, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Coffey, Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoyle, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cox, Tom
Hutton, John


Cryer, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Adam


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Dafis, Cynog
Jamieson, David


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dixon, Don
Keen, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Khabra, Piara S.


Dowd, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter





Kirkwood, Archy
Prescott, John


Leighton, Ron
Primarolo, Dawn


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lewis, Terry
Radice, Giles


Litherland, Robert
Randall, Stuart


Livingstone, Ken
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Redmond, Martin


Llwyd, Elfyn
Reid, Dr John


Loyden, Eddie
Rendel, David


Lynne, Ms Liz
Richardson, Jo


McAllion, John
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Macdonald, Calum
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


McKelvey, William
Rogers, Allan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McLeish, Henry
Rooney, Terry


McMaster, Gordon
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McNamara, Kevin
Rowlands, Ted


McWilliam, John
Ruddock, Joan


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Mandelson, Peter
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marek, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Clare


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Simpson, Alan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Skinner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maxton, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Meacher, Michael
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Milburn, Alan
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri
Straw, Jack


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mowlam, Marjorie
Walley, Joan


Mudie, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mullin, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Paul
Watson, Mike


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Hara, Edward
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Olner, William
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Audrey


Paisley, Rev Ian
Worthington, Tony


Patchett, Terry
Wray, Jimmy


Pendry, Tom
Wright, Dr Tony


Pickthall, Colin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L.



Pope, Greg
Tellers for the Ayes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Mr. John Spellar.


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bates, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Batiste, Spencer


Alexander, Richard
Beggs, Roy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bellingham, Henry


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bendall, Vivian


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Ashby, David
Body, Sir Richard


Aspinwall, Jack
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Booth, Hartley


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bowden, Andrew


Baldry, Tony
Bowis, John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brandreth, Gyles






Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Hague, William


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cash, William
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Nick


Churchill, Mr
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Congdon, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Conway, Derek
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jessel, Toby


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dover, Den
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan, Alan
Key, Robert


Duncan Smith, Iain
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evennett, David
Legg, Barry


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Madel, David


Gallie, Phil
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gardiner, Sir George
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)





Mates, Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spink, Dr Robert


Merchant, Piers
Spring, Richard


Milligan, Stephen
Sproat, Iain


Mills, Iain
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Steen, Anthony


Moate, Sir Roger
Stephen, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Stern, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stewart, Allan


Moss, Malcolm
Streeter, Gary


Needham, Richard
Sumberg, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sykes, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thomason, Roy


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Page, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Paice, James
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Patnick, Irvine
Thurnham, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pawsey, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tracey, Richard


Pickles, Eric
Tredinnick, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Trend, Michael


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trotter, Neville


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Powell, William (Corby)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walden, George


Richards, Rod
Waller, Gary


Riddick, Graham
Ward, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robathan, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Watts, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wells, Bowen


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whittingdale, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Sackville, Tom
Wilkinson, John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Willetts, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Yeo, Tim


Shersby, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sims, Roger



Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. James Arbuthnot


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Speed, Sir Keith

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, noting the problems of indebtedness and restricted trade access in hampering thegrowth ofdeveloping countries, welcomes the agreements by the G7 countries in Tokyo to consider improved debt reduction terms for the poorest and most indebted countries, including the possibility of earlier action on reducing the stock of debt on a case by case basis in accordance with the Prime Minister's Trinidad Terms initiative, to make all efforts to enhance development assistance, and to seek to achieve a successful Uruguay Round before the end of the year.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH NATIONALITY

Ordered,
That the draft British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection Scheme) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnicki.]

Ordered,
That the draftbution>Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

PETITIONS

New Town, Cambridgeshire

Sir Anthony Grant: I beg leave to present a petition signed by more than 2,000 of my constituents. The views that it contains are supported by many more of my constituents; local, district and county councillors; and me.
The petition concerns a wholly absurd proposal to build a new settlement in the heart of my constituency. I have twice explained the objections on the Floor of the House, once as long ago as six years. The petition reads:
The Petition of the Parishioners of twelve parishes around and including Bourne and Caxton in the county of Cambridgeshire—
which may not be wholly unfamiliar to you, Madam Speaker—
whose names and signatures are included herein declares that there is a substantial case against the application for planning consent to build a new town in the locality and for which there is no need. Particular attention is drawn to the state of the housing market and to the new lower housing need estimates published by the County Council as compared to those current at the time of the inquiry. Another material matter is the recently revised and lower status of the A45 west of Cambridge. The dualling of this road was identified by the inspector as a vital factor in site location. Further that the question of traffic generation through Bourn village has not been adequately addressed in the spirit suggested by the Minister in his decision letter. If built the new town would irreparably damage the environs of many local village communities. The Petitioners herein respectfully and earnestly request the House of Commons to call upon the Minister to give adequate direction to those charged with the consideration of the issues by firmly declaring that Government advice in the form of planning policy guidelines should be carefully consulted to take account of those matters where material and significant changes have occurred in the planning context since the public inquiry. Further that these changes are sufficient in themselves to justify the Minister calling in the competing applications and decide that circumstances having changed so dramatically since the inquiry there is no useful purpose to be served in pursuing the concept of a new settlement in this locality. The Petitioners herein remain your obedient servants and humbly wait upon the pleasure of the House.

To lie upon the Table.

Wellfield Hospital

Mr. David Evans: I am privileged to have the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the Wellfield hospital action group. The petition, which has been signed by over 2,000 of my constituents, concerns the wellbeing of the former residents of Wellfield hospital. These people are, in the last years of their lives, unhappy and isolated from their families in their present location in Wellfield ward 2, East Herts hospital, Stansted road, Hertford.
The situation has been brought about by total mismanagement on the part of North West Thames regional health authority, under the chairmanship of Sir William Doughty, and its officers. Promises were made to the petitioners, which have been blatantly disregarded to allow further funding of the new Westminster and Chelsea hospital.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will recognise our call—by the Wellfield hospital action group—
upon the East Herts NHS trust to rebuild Wellfield Hospital IMMEDIATELY. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Bypass, Ambleside

Mr. Michael Jopling: I have the honour to present to the House a petition sent to me by my constituent, Mr. Cook, of Ambleside. You will know, Madam Speaker, that Ambleside is one of the great jewels of the Lake district. The petition has been put together by Mr. Cook and eight stalwart canvassers. They have approached, or tried to contact, virtually all my 2,250 constituents who are on the electoral roll in Ambleside. They succeeded in contacting 1,314 people—that is, 58·4 per cent. of the total electoral roll.
The petition is about the need to construct a bypass round Ambleside. The petition says:
The excessive volume of traffic on the A591 road through our town is causing unacceptable levels of congestion, noise, pollution and delay, making the everyday commerce of the town difficult, dangerous and unpleasant for its residents, and further threatening its prosperity by rendering it unattractive to the visitors on whom its economic wellbeing depends.
Of the 1,314 people approached, no fewer than 1,046—that is, 79·6 per cent.—voted for a bypass, compared with 188, or 14·3 per cent., who were against, and 80, or 6·1 per cent., who abstained.
This is a remarkable petition. It means that those who expressed their desire to have a bypass constituted 46·5 per cent. of the total electorate. Their purpose was to demonstrate to the House their hope that the petition would finally enshrine the overwhelming desire of the people of Ambleside to put a stop to the appalling traffic congestion in that beautiful town, and that a bypass would be constructed.
The petition ends:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will take measures to require the highway authority, Cumbria county council, to initiate the construction of a bypass road following the route described as the orange route in that council's 1992 consultative documents, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Sub-post Offices

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I beg leave to present a petition against the removal by the Government of the right to receive pension and benefit payments at local sub-post offices.
The petition was collected by sub-postmasters and postmistresses and by pensioners and claimants in York, to whom I pay tribute. It is signed by county councillor Janet Lucker, of Clifton Dale, York, and by L. W. Quinn, the secretary of York Labour party, of Bramble Dene, Woodthorpe, York. The petition is supported by me and it reads as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland assembled. The Humble Petition of the people of York Sheweth that the Government is proposing to make compulsory the method of paying pensions and other benefits by Automated Credit Transfer and that we, the undersigned, vigorously protest against this proposal for the following reasons:

(1) The small post office is very often the hub of the community, performing a very important social service.
(2) Many small post offices rely on paying pensions and other benefits to survive.
(3) Many people rely on the post office to cash their benefits and in some cases may not have a bank account.
(4) Compulsory payment of benefits by automated credit transfer takes away choice from people.
The petition is signed by 9,367 of my constituents and concludes with the following words:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Social Services to give people the right to choose to receive pension and benefit payments at their local post office, recognising the benefits of this to the individual and community.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

VAT on Fuel

Mr. Eric Illsley: I have the honour to present a petition from residents of Barnsley who protest against the Government's decision to impose value added tax on domestic fuel and power.
The petition of the residents of Barnsley, some 2,000, in total,
Sheweth that the recent disgraceful announcement of VAT increases on gas and electricity bills has filled the people of Barnsley with deep concern because of the consequential hardship these increases will have on old age pensioners, one parent families and, in general, poorer members of society. They believe these increases to be to the long-term detriment of those least well off in Barnsley and throughout the nation. Hundreds of people of Barnsley have expressed their concern by signing this petitiin because they feel they are neither economically or socially justified.
The petitioners end their petition by saying:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will take measures to see that these increases will not proceed because of the social and economic hardship for pensioners, one parent families and communities.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Hip Replacement Operations

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Paul Flynn: This is a remarkable story. It is about a scandal at the heart of the national health service, leading to a wanton waste of millions of pounds and to an immeasurable and unnecessary amount of human suffering. Forty thousand hip operations take place in Britain every year. They provide renewed mobility and an end to acute suffering for the great majority of those who receive them. In part, it is a great success story. However, there is another side to it.
Many senior surgeons have expressed deep anxieties about the Government's policy. Earlier this year, the British Orthopaedic Association withdrew from discussions with the Government over best practice guidelines. The main charge is that there has been a deterioration in the quality of operations, possibly as a result of over-emphasis on the quantity of operations.
The number of failed operations has mushroomed. In the 1980s, the number of failures trebled to 12 per cent and it is feared that that rate will rise to 33 per cent. In an article in the British Medical Journal in March this year, Dr. Bulstrode, a former orthopaedic surgeon at the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, described what he called "designer hips". They are newly developed implants that are expensively designed. Factories are tooled up and the product is developed and marketed at great cost. Most designer hips are indistinguishable from the traditional hips that have existed for a long time. Some of the new ones are successful, but others fail—they usually quietly disappear from the scene without leaving a trace because there is no register of failures.
The standard traditional hip replacement—mainly the Charnley, which was designed about 30 years ago—can be sold for as little as £100 and has a failure rate of less than 1 per cent. per year. The newer "designer" implants can cost up to £1,500. Most are untested and unproven and some are failing within four to five years.
I would like to present precise figures of what has been happening in the United Kingdom, but that is impossible—not because I have not diligently prepared for this debate, but because the figures are simply not known. On 14 February, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health told me that the Government have no record of the success and failure rates of hip prostheses used in this country. Luckily, one country has done the work. Sweden has conducted detailed research on 93,000 hip replacements. Among many other useful bits of information, it was discovered that one implant—the Christensen hip—has an atrocious record. It was used in more than 5,000 operations and virtually not one of them lasted four years.
The cost of that designer hip is an estimated $20 million in the revision operations required, plus the anguish of the thousands of victims. Do we know if there has been a similar mass failure here? There has almost certainly been such a mass failure, but we have no knowledge of it because so many of the prostheses that have been introduced in the past 20 years have quietly disappeared without any national record.
In 1971, there was only one type of implant—the Charnley. There are at least 34 on the market now. Dr. Bulstrode said:
There is now more money in design than in success rates. Every year there is a new colour, a new shape, a new coating.
He estimates that if every surgeon used the most reliable model, the annual cost of revision operations would be £200 million. If we continue to use unproven implants, the cost will rise to about £600 million in the next 10 years.
In July 1992, the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin had this to say:
There are no formal controls for new joint designs nor for their marketing. The newer hips should be considered experimental and this should be made explicit when seeking the patient's informed consent to surgery.
How can clinicians, let alone patients, exercise choice? How can they make informed decisions? There are no statutory tests that hip replacements must satisfy before they can be marketed, nor is there any centrally held information. I recently asked the Secretary of State for Health what plans she had to introduce a national register. She told me that she had no such plans. The manufacturing registration scheme of the Department of Health is voluntary and has in no way deterred manufacturers from launching suspect and unproven designs. The Government lack the courage to compel manufacturers to meet statutory standards and to subject them to the kind of close monitoring that takes place in the United States and in many other countries.
A point strongly made in the report by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in 1991 on elective surgery was why it was that drugs had to undergo rigorous tests before they could be introduced and prescribed when implants were treated differently. The dangers are just as great. The damage caused by an inadequate hip implant is not easily rectified. Dr. Michael Wroblewski—Charnley's successor in Wigan, where the technique was pioneered—says:
The first time is the best time. After that it is salvage.
When the first operation is carried out, a great deal of the good, healthy bone has to be sacrificed. In perhaps his most stark comment, Dr. Bulstrode said:
I could go home tonight, knock up a hip in the garden shed, bring it in tomorrow, sterilise it and just whack it into a patient and there's no law in the land to stop me.
Revision operations drain NHS resources and lengthen waiting lists. They take nearly twice as long as primary operations and require longer hospital stays. One revision means that two primary operations have to be cancelled.
The Government have long been obsessed with the methods and the language of the market. Increasingly, they apply their ideology to everything, including health care. Understandable concern about waiting times has spurred the Government into precipitate action. The Government have maximised bed throughput by minimising standards. The modern health service manager is subjected to performance-related pay and has one overriding objective—to treat as many patients as possible. That is the measure of successful management and, in isolation, it is extremely dangerous and damaging. Higher productivity cannot be the sole criterion when the raw material is a human patient. The value of an operation cannot be measured by knocking one number off the waiting list. It must be assessed carefully over months and years.
Specialist orthopaedic surgeons have a high success rate. It is surprising to know that in Britain we have the


lowest percentage of specialist orthopaedic surgeons of any western country. What is happening with the conveyor-belt surgery that is being cranked up to maximum productivity is that more and more nonspecialists are being employed. The specialist hip or orthopaediecentres are losing patients to general hospitals simply because they happen to have a surgeon available. A short-term reduction in waiting lists is followed by an influx of patients requiring revision. A report in The Guardian quotes one specialist, Mr. Khalid Drabu, a consultant surgeon at East Surrey hospital, as saying:
An artificial hip can and should last 15 to 20 years, but we've got a tidal wave of patients returning within four to eight years and many sooner.
What do the Government offer? Answers to parliamentary questions reveal that the Government have no register of revisions, no statistics on which implants fail, no database to explain what is happening and no study—there is one study of Trent—as comprehensive as the Swedish one which would identify the rogue prostheses. They have no plan and they have no strategy, except perhaps the lame excuse that was given to me in a letter—that the European Community would come galloping to their rescue.
In a letter to me, the Minister says that a European CE marking will apply to hip implants, and that it is intended to come into force
on I January 1995 with a transitional period that will extend to about mid 1998.
That is five long years away, whereas the misery, the tragedy and the waste is happening now, and is still evolving—a great medical scandal. We need action from the Minister now. We need him to say tonight that he will commit himself to setting up a national register of hip replacements which will identify the rogue prostheses and the least competent surgeons, both of which are formidable elements in the scandal that we are discussing.
We want immediate short-term studies on new operations. These can be done easily. It is possible to measure accurately through minute X-rays the tiny migrations that take place in the first six months after an operation. That can be plotted to show what will happen over the next five or, indeed, 20 years. The technology is there. We must do that now.
We need a thorough investigation into the selling and marketing of prostheses by manufacturers. We hear odd stories of inducements being offered. We know of cases in which improper commercial pressures are being put on surgeons and others in the health service. We need more professionally trained orthopaedic surgeons. We need a system of audit that rewards NHS managers and medical staff for the quality, not the quantity, of their work.
These are not new concerns. This letter was written by Mr. Michael Freeman, the present president of the British Orthopaedic Association. He demands that we take steps to prevent
the unlimited proliferation of indistinguishably different or bad prostheses".
That letter was written on 13 November 1973. Some 20 years later another distinguished orthopaedic surgeon wrote to Mr. Freeman, pointing out that that 1973 letter probably initiated the interest of orthopaedic surgeons in the field. He said:

For all these years we have been struggling to get some scheme off the ground. The sadness is that even when it had been accepted by all the various bodies, even the Minister himself, absolutely nothing happened.
That letter was written on 25 March thi s year.
There have been 20 years of vain struggle. The legacy of Government inactivity is now exacerbated by market forces coming into the health service. Inducements are offered by greedy profiteers. The tradition of care, high science and best quality medicine is being corrupted by the Government's devotion to market forces.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on obtaining an Adjournment debate on this important topic. The debate is timely and I know that he has a long-standing, close personal interest in the topic. Not many people would give up the chance of representing Britain in the 400 metre hurdles in next year's Olympic games just to have an Adjournment debate on hip and knee joint replacement surgery.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to the topic of the debate as yet another scandal story about how the health service operates. I am pleased that, although I am speaking as Labour's Front-Bench health spokesman in Wales, it is the Government's English Under-Secretary of State for Health who will respond, because that will avoid any possible problems in relation to the quasi-judicial functions that the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Health occasionally have.
I intend to add some local interest and to refer to the Yellow Ribbon story in relation to knee and hip joint replacements that are carried out at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital. It is in my constituency, but it serves virtually the whole of Wales for replacements if the waiting time has exceeded the patients charter guideline. That waiting time was 18 months, though an attempt is being made to reduce it to 12 months now. I do not criticise the unique method used by the Welsh Office under this Government of having specialist "treatment centres", which do not exist in England, simply to treat those who have been on the waiting list for a long time. The centres treat cataracts and there is one in my constituency at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar, for knee and hip joint replacements.
I applaud the treatment centre phenomenon, but the surgeon in charge of the Rhydlafar centre has experienced considerable difficulties and has now been suspended on full pay pending disciplinary hearings. Those hearings will obviously take their course in the usual way, but I raise the matter in the House because I suspect that there is a strong connection between the point raised by my hon. Friend and the treatment centre.
A specialist treatment centre for patients on the waiting list for knee and hip joint replacements takes bread out of the mouths of the orthopaedic consultants who, to a man—they are all men—also operate at BUPA and other private hospitals in Cardiff and Newport. I believe that there is one private centre in Newport at a Catholic foundation hospital and there is a BUPA hospital in Cardiff. Most orthopaedic surgeons tend to share their time between the two.
If a treatment centre is set up with the specific aim of taking all the patients from anywhere in Wales who have been waiting for 18 months—I think that it is now 12


months—since first seeing a consultant for treatment, free to the purchasing health authority, that obviously takes bread out of the mouths of the private consultants who would love to be treating them at £3,000 or £4,000 a time at a BUPA hospital.
To make matters worse, on 1 April 1993 at the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar, a third operating theatre was opened. The triple suite there now means that the work can be dealt with rapidly and, in theory, the waiting list could be removed altogether. That, in turn, takes the bread out of the mouth of the BUPA and other private hospitals with orthopaedic facilities.
That places enormous pressure on orthopaedic consultants' income from private work. The more work that is done under the NHS and the more the waiting lists for hip and knee joint operations under the NHS shrink, the more one removes the incentive for private operations at BUPA and other hospitals. That sets up enormous tensions between the surgeons who are best at cutting the waiting lists and the surgeons who make most of their money from private work.
A surgeon can either be one of the boys, take it slowly and not work too fast in order to leave plenty of work to be done privately, or he can be as committed to the NHS as it is possible to be and thereby upset his colleagues. Attitudes to patient care and the functions of the NHS must be borne in mind when specific treatment centres are set up as part of Government policy.
At the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar, the top orthopaedic surgeon involved in knee and hip joint replacement, who is in charge of the contract from the Welsh Office, has been told to cut the waiting list. Patients waiting longer than the maximum time allowed by the patients charter, whether they are from north, mid or south Wales, have to be treated free, at no cost to the patient or the purchasing health authority from which the patient originates. They can be dealt with immediately at the Prince of Wales hospital. That is what should, in principle, be done.
But that has probably led to a climate of jealousy and tension between professionals which may well, in turn, have led to the suspension of the director of the treatment centre, Ian Mackie, on 17 June pending disciplinary proceedings for a series of charges of gross misconduct, professional misconduct, and so on.
Whether the charges have been trumped up, as many people believe, I am not in a position to say, but the tension between the various professionals in knee and hip joint replacement surgery has been building up for a long time. The treatment centre has been putting pressure on the private income of those who have been largely dependent on performing knee and hip joint work at BUPA and other private facility hospitals in south Wales. It is, therefore, fortunate that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), will be dealing with the issue, because the Welsh Office Minister might at some time in the future have to deal with quasi-judicial appeals. The Minister here tonight will not have to, so he will not be embarrassed by my referring to the issue.
Since Mr. Ian Mackie has been suspended from duty, members of staff, patients and others have been wearing yellow ribbons to show their support for him. I was told of an incident only today when the acting unit manager visited the hospital to get members of staff to remove "Back Mackie" stickers from their cars while they are on

hospital premises. That is getting heavy; people should be free to express their opinions about the surgeon but they are clearly not able to do so because of the health authority's sensitivity and the fact that the authority is undertaking disciplinary proceedings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West made an extremely important point about the lack of guidelines. Biomet and Zimmer are the two companies which are in dispute and are behind the present incident that led to the suspension. They are or were American owned. Nobody knows how far such companies can go in encouraging consultants to be demonstrators or lecturers at international conferences. Are they supposed to ask consultants to demonstrate their equipment, or is it a breach of disciplinary procedures? We do not know, because there are no guidelines laid down by the British Medical Association or the hospital service. In the absence of any satisfactory guidelines from the NHS, I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the matter tonight so that the Minister can tell us what the Government's position is in a matter on which they do not appear to have any policy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on raising this important subject. I know of his strong interest in hip replacement operations.
The medical development of the prosthetic replacement of joints culminated in the 1960s in the first hip replacements for patients. The development of the early hip prostheses owes much to the ingenuity of Sir John Charnley in Manchester and the pioneering work carried out by Mckee and Watson-Ferrar in Norwich. In less than 30 years, other joint prostheses have been added, but the one that meets the greatest need of people all over the world remains the hip joint replacement.
Many problems have been recognised in the use of prostheses, such as that of operating on elderly patients. In the first 15 years or so, it was the elderly lady with the fractured neck or femur and those suffering from the degenerative condition of osteoarthritis who were the natural priorities. In the 1960s, however, doctors and patients immediately recognised that a hip replacement offered effective treatment for debilitating or depressing health problems. From the wheelchair or from confinement to the house and dependence on others for simple activities, people could become free of the pain of osteoarthritis and able to lead more independent lives.
The numbers of hip replacements rose rapidly. In England in 1969—

Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sackville: If I do, I shall not be able to get through what I am trying to say, so I would rather not.
In England in 1969, there were 10,869 operations. By 1979, the number had risen to 28,788. Recently published data show that more than 50,000 operations were carried out in 1989–90. Total hip replacements have been one of the outstanding success stories of the national health service. Through this operation, skilled surgeons are making a major contribution to improving the quality of life for many thousands of people every year.
As the hon. Gentleman said, many prostheses have been brought into the market since the early days of Charnley, and the majority of the 800-plus orthopaedic surgeons are performing this operation every week in the national health service. The success of the operation has brought new developments in its wake. Surgeons are now extending the range of patients for whom it is considered beneficial to provide prostheses—younger, fitter, more active people who expect to return not only to domestic activities in comfort but to the energetic pursuits they enjoyed before joint disease slowed them down. We can justifiably take pride in the achievements of the national health service in providing such a large number of operations and in extending hip prostheses—

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sackville: I have only four minutes left.

Mr. Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Mr. Sackville: We must also recognise that there is an implication for the design and long-term performance of the prostheses themselves, subjected to much greater wear and tear over the longer lifespan of those younger patients. Much research and development worldwide is concentrating on the problems that this presents to patients and their doctors. The sorts of areas of research aimed at reducing the effects of wear include the materials prostheses are made of, the precise design and, thus, the distribution of stresses during movement, and the value of the use of various types of cement to fix the prostheses in place and whether cement is needed at all.
Of course, there is not consensus among clinicians about individual prostheses. Indeed, as has been said, we have insufficient knowledge in many areas. However, we know that the life expectancy of a hip prosthesis is reckoned to be between 10 and 15 years. We also know that 9·5 per cent. of all hip replacement operations in 1990–91 were revisions. Of course, this does not give us a

true percentage revision rate. Estimates of revisions vary considerably. Many experts would agree on about 10 per cent. Revisions are an important load on the national health service resources, and we are all—patients, doctors and everyone involved in the service—concerned to reduce that burden of distress and to maximise the use of resources so that more patients may have a satisfactory outcome and more money may be available for providing treatment.
In the United Kingdom, total hip replacements are classified as medical devices and, as yet, are not subject to specific legislation. Voluntary controls have, however, been applied for many years by the Department of Health, under the manufacturer registration scheme, which has been in operation since 1986. This involves the assessment of the manufacturer's facilities to ensure they meet the Department's requirements for quality assurance, including control of product design. The requirements for total hip replacements are included in "Quality Systems for Orthopaedic Implants", which was published in 1990. This calls for compliance with BS 5750, as well as specific materials and product standards.
The list of approved manufacturers is supplied to the NHS and the private sector, which are strongly recommended to buy only from registered companies.

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Sackville: Another important control is the Department's—

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a point of order for the Chair?

Mr. Flynn: It is, Sir. I appeal to you, as the defender of the rights of Back Benchers. My speech tonight was my first Back-Bench speech in the Chamber for more than 12 months. The Minister is abusing his position by ignoring all the—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.